Nails strewn across road in New Forest village putting hundreds of lives at risk

Daily Echo: Wiggle cyclists in the New Forest at the weekend. Wiggle cyclists in the New Forest at the weekend.

HUNDREDS of lives were put at risk after yet another attempt to sabotage a mass cycling event in Hampshire.

Nails were laid along the road in a New Forest village over the weekend as more than 2,000 cyclists took part in the first Wiggle Sportive event of the year.

It's not the first time event opponents have tried to ruin the mass ride.

This time last year the event was disrupted when drawing pins were scattered across the road and motorists drove slowly forming a roadblock to slow down competitors.

There were further problems during another Wiggle event last October when, in the dead of night, signage was pulled down and mud was sprayed across the road.

Police confirmed they were aware of the latest incident which happened on Saturday morning in the village of Bransgore - and said that more than 20 cyclists suffered punctures.

It happened just 24 hours after the Daily Echo reported how posters had been erected by opponents warning residents to raise the alarm if any entrants caused trouble.

They listed 15 villages and towns which would form part of the route.

A Hampshire MP today slammed the dangerous act as “absolutely reprehensible” and said he would be raising the matter in London.

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis said top level talks were going on with Government ministers and national park chiefs to resolve tensions between residents and cyclists.

Dr Lewis said: “It does not help anyone when people, however frustrated they feel, do something that could lead to a nasty accident or at the very least a nasty confrontation.

“I'm hoping that the cause of the provocation will sooner rather than later be sorted out but taking the law into one's own hands is not the way forward.

“Doing something illegal and dangerous is never the right thing to do.”

He added: “This whole issue is absolutely being focused on by local elected representatives' right up to Government ministers. I would appeal to the community to disassociate themselves from these actions.”

Martin Barden, director of UK Cycling Events who organised the Wiggle Spring Sportive, criticised the vandalism.

He said: “There were a handful of locals who tried to disrupt the event, and marshals had to clear that up. It is something nobody wants to see but we do not have much control of that.

“We are surprised and saddened to see it happen again after last year, but it had no affect on the event or the enjoyment of the riders taking part.”

He added that as a whole the event was a big success and it saw more than 2,000 cyclists take to the road and ride 84 miles around the New Forest - raising £3,000 for Oakhaven Hospice. He hopes the event will be back in October this year.

Among the competitors in the weekend event was 'critic' Dr Tony Hockley, chairman of the New Forest Equestrian Association, who said he wanted to see for himself how cyclists affect the animals.

He described seeing one concerning incident where a herd of cattle were 'spooked', but praised the event on whole.

He said: “There are a few cyclists who had that 'hell for leather' mentality - but that was a minority.”

“I did see some cyclists overtake on blind bends and narrow lanes, one even overtook me on a right hand turn on the wrong side of the road.

Most of the riders rode in single file, and nearly all of them behaved very well.”

Comments (274)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:35am Mon 14 Apr 14

saint61 says...

I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think saint61
  • Score: 49

7:35am Mon 14 Apr 14

yellowhedgepig says...

Little Britain
Little Britain yellowhedgepig
  • Score: 23

7:40am Mon 14 Apr 14

issacchunt says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
Should you really be taking your "monkey" into the forest? Maybe you should stay and home and spank it.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]Should you really be taking your "monkey" into the forest? Maybe you should stay and home and spank it. issacchunt
  • Score: 133

7:52am Mon 14 Apr 14

userds5050 says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
The folk there don't want or need your monkey.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]The folk there don't want or need your monkey. userds5050
  • Score: 40

7:53am Mon 14 Apr 14

saint61 says...

issacchunt wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
Should you really be taking your "monkey" into the forest? Maybe you should stay and home and spank it.
Ha ha very sharp.
I obviously meant MONEY
[quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]Should you really be taking your "monkey" into the forest? Maybe you should stay and home and spank it.[/p][/quote]Ha ha very sharp. I obviously meant MONEY saint61
  • Score: 22

7:54am Mon 14 Apr 14

sburman says...

How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people.
How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people. sburman
  • Score: 31

8:30am Mon 14 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

I can see how frustrated some people can be... but come on.... this action is dangerous and pathetic.
I can see how frustrated some people can be... but come on.... this action is dangerous and pathetic. Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 45

8:39am Mon 14 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

On another note... I was a driver and a cyclist living in the Forest and since coming over here it is clear to see the differance in attitudes.
Firstly, if I hit a cyclist (or pedestrian) here it is my fault... no debate.
Secondly, the "Tour de Fjord" that goes past where I live is well controlled and leaflets are given out weeks before within the local paper telling the route and times of road closures.
This then becomes a trouble free happy event for everybody.
On another note... I was a driver and a cyclist living in the Forest and since coming over here it is clear to see the differance in attitudes. Firstly, if I hit a cyclist (or pedestrian) here it is my fault... no debate. Secondly, the "Tour de Fjord" that goes past where I live is well controlled and leaflets are given out weeks before within the local paper telling the route and times of road closures. This then becomes a trouble free happy event for everybody. Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 31

8:41am Mon 14 Apr 14

Mr E says...

If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ?
If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ? Mr E
  • Score: 35

9:09am Mon 14 Apr 14

StElsass says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
They wouldn't have laid nails on the road of their own village, surely?
They can't be that stupid! Then again......
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]They wouldn't have laid nails on the road of their own village, surely? They can't be that stupid! Then again...... StElsass
  • Score: 16

9:21am Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -93

9:24am Mon 14 Apr 14

AndyVD says...

Mr E wrote:
If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ?
Its a 2D image, the perspective makes it look like that but clearly there are two actually overtaking at the back.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ?[/p][/quote]Its a 2D image, the perspective makes it look like that but clearly there are two actually overtaking at the back. AndyVD
  • Score: 1

9:29am Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

The police need to find out who is supplying these snails.
The police need to find out who is supplying these snails. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -14

9:37am Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

AndyVD wrote:
Mr E wrote:
If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ?
Its a 2D image, the perspective makes it look like that but clearly there are two actually overtaking at the back.
Or does the 2D image make it look like the cyclists are overtaking when they are clearly riding 3 or 4 abreast ?
[quote][p][bold]AndyVD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: If the Cyclists were all sticking to the rules why publish a picture of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast ?[/p][/quote]Its a 2D image, the perspective makes it look like that but clearly there are two actually overtaking at the back.[/p][/quote]Or does the 2D image make it look like the cyclists are overtaking when they are clearly riding 3 or 4 abreast ? Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -9

9:38am Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME.

It's time the "good" residents of the New Forest stand up and out these ugly, ugly people.

You are all being tarred with the same brush.
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME. It's time the "good" residents of the New Forest stand up and out these ugly, ugly people. You are all being tarred with the same brush. Franks Tank
  • Score: 31

9:47am Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

I've take issue with Tony Hockley before, but at least this time he got out there and gave it ago.
Might even be a life changing event.

However, I suspect if he was able to observe 2000 motorist over 84 miles of the Forest he'd observe plenty of "spooked cattle", hell for leather mentality and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres on narrow roads as well.
I've take issue with Tony Hockley before, but at least this time he got out there and gave it ago. Might even be a life changing event. However, I suspect if he was able to observe 2000 motorist over 84 miles of the Forest he'd observe plenty of "spooked cattle", hell for leather mentality and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres on narrow roads as well. Franks Tank
  • Score: 40

10:04am Mon 14 Apr 14

Bingo from Sholing says...

That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone.
That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone. Bingo from Sholing
  • Score: -10

10:11am Mon 14 Apr 14

Hamwic says...

As a resident and daily user of the New Forest for Recreation I am appalled that this dangerous stand has been taken again.

Yes I find it annoying that I have to try and pre-plan my routes to avoid the cyclists but I'm sure that many people think that I get in their way when I am riding my horse. We all have a right to use the forest.

Yesterday I did forget that the event was on and encountered 10-15 groups of cyclists whilst riding along Furzley Lane near Bramshaw. I have to highly commend about half of these groups as they gave fair warning of their approach by calling out and then giving us a wide berth at a sensible speed. the others, however, are obviously unaware of the accidents which can be caused when they pass close to livestock unannounced and at speed. I am very lucky that my horse is not spooked by cyclists but others may not be so lucky.
As a resident and daily user of the New Forest for Recreation I am appalled that this dangerous stand has been taken again. Yes I find it annoying that I have to try and pre-plan my routes to avoid the cyclists but I'm sure that many people think that I get in their way when I am riding my horse. We all have a right to use the forest. Yesterday I did forget that the event was on and encountered 10-15 groups of cyclists whilst riding along Furzley Lane near Bramshaw. I have to highly commend about half of these groups as they gave fair warning of their approach by calling out and then giving us a wide berth at a sensible speed. the others, however, are obviously unaware of the accidents which can be caused when they pass close to livestock unannounced and at speed. I am very lucky that my horse is not spooked by cyclists but others may not be so lucky. Hamwic
  • Score: 9

10:45am Mon 14 Apr 14

CivicCentered says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
If you were as educated as you want everyone to believe, you wouldn't have appeared to be a complete cretin...
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]If you were as educated as you want everyone to believe, you wouldn't have appeared to be a complete cretin... CivicCentered
  • Score: 49

10:45am Mon 14 Apr 14

BeyondImagination says...

There were lots of strange "animals" running around London yesterday. Did anyone complain?
There were lots of strange "animals" running around London yesterday. Did anyone complain? BeyondImagination
  • Score: 14

10:50am Mon 14 Apr 14

RomseyKeith says...

They don't like you city folk there, what with the mangrove and all. But they do like to hear those piggies squeal! Squeal piggy! You got a pretty mouth, boy.

London had a similar mass event this week with loads of people clogging up the roads running. I'm sure they didn't have this kind of pathetic, small-minded intollerance.
They don't like you city folk there, what with the mangrove and all. But they do like to hear those piggies squeal! Squeal piggy! You got a pretty mouth, boy. London had a similar mass event this week with loads of people clogging up the roads running. I'm sure they didn't have this kind of pathetic, small-minded intollerance. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 21

10:52am Mon 14 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

CivicCentered wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
If you were as educated as you want everyone to believe, you wouldn't have appeared to be a complete cretin...
The moment you realise that abuse is your only available retort is the moment you lose the argument. I believe the words first appeared in the Bible but a more modern versions suggests "It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."
[quote][p][bold]CivicCentered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]If you were as educated as you want everyone to believe, you wouldn't have appeared to be a complete cretin...[/p][/quote]The moment you realise that abuse is your only available retort is the moment you lose the argument. I believe the words first appeared in the Bible but a more modern versions suggests "It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt." Torchie1
  • Score: -12

10:53am Mon 14 Apr 14

wav3ydave says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
"the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like"

You haven't been in many pubs, have you Mandy?
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]"the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like" You haven't been in many pubs, have you Mandy? wav3ydave
  • Score: 15

11:07am Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 8

11:16am Mon 14 Apr 14

eurogordi says...

Having driven across the forest yesterday morning towards Fordingbridge, my own encounter with the cyclists was far more positive than it was a year ago. Obviously the cyclists had been told about the concerns of local residents.

However, while I do not condone what has happened in Bransgore, I did see a minority of cyclists who were still displaying total arrogance. Despite clear signs on some roads saying "single file", there were those who still rode two or three abreast.

The worst incident I witnessed was when one cyclist then overtook a group of others WITHOUT signalling or checking who or what was coming from behind. S/he not only put themselves at risk, but also other cyclists as well as the poor motorist (not me!) who fortunately reacted very quickly to avoid a serious accident.

But all in all, I did not see or receive any abusive behaviour from cyclists this year and that, presumably, can only be a good thing!
Having driven across the forest yesterday morning towards Fordingbridge, my own encounter with the cyclists was far more positive than it was a year ago. Obviously the cyclists had been told about the concerns of local residents. However, while I do not condone what has happened in Bransgore, I did see a minority of cyclists who were still displaying total arrogance. Despite clear signs on some roads saying "single file", there were those who still rode two or three abreast. The worst incident I witnessed was when one cyclist then overtook a group of others WITHOUT signalling or checking who or what was coming from behind. S/he not only put themselves at risk, but also other cyclists as well as the poor motorist (not me!) who fortunately reacted very quickly to avoid a serious accident. But all in all, I did not see or receive any abusive behaviour from cyclists this year and that, presumably, can only be a good thing! eurogordi
  • Score: 10

11:16am Mon 14 Apr 14

derek james says...

"hundreds of lives at risk" is surely a slight exageration!
"hundreds of lives at risk" is surely a slight exageration! derek james
  • Score: 12

11:22am Mon 14 Apr 14

rightway says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back. rightway
  • Score: 5

11:22am Mon 14 Apr 14

speedicut says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
"Surrealistic" shouldn't have a capital 'S' as it isn't at the beginning of a sentence.

People in glass houses etc...
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]"Surrealistic" shouldn't have a capital 'S' as it isn't at the beginning of a sentence. People in glass houses etc... speedicut
  • Score: 24

11:24am Mon 14 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

Its funny how people who live in a national park assume its their park or their forest. It belongs to everyone get over yourselves.
Just because an activity that doesn't involve wellies and a black Labrador takes place twice a year, grow up.
Its funny how people who live in a national park assume its their park or their forest. It belongs to everyone get over yourselves. Just because an activity that doesn't involve wellies and a black Labrador takes place twice a year, grow up. bigfella777
  • Score: 24

11:28am Mon 14 Apr 14

forest hump says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists forest hump
  • Score: 2

11:31am Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings !

We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance.

Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that !
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that ! Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -25

11:35am Mon 14 Apr 14

redsnapper says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter)

BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events.

Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter) BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events. Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs. redsnapper
  • Score: 1

12:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Spray the cyclists with a foxy scent and let the local Hunt loose to pursue them, great fun for all.
Spray the cyclists with a foxy scent and let the local Hunt loose to pursue them, great fun for all. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -5

12:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Lets spread nails on the same roads this week when all the people who did this will be getting to work/their stables. There would be a witch hunt and utter uproar from them.

Infantile, petty and down right dangerous making these people nothing more than street vandals. Lower than a snakes belly and needing to rethink their outlook on organised events.

I swear most of the trouble prior to/during/after these events all come from non-participants. Morons.
Lets spread nails on the same roads this week when all the people who did this will be getting to work/their stables. There would be a witch hunt and utter uproar from them. Infantile, petty and down right dangerous making these people nothing more than street vandals. Lower than a snakes belly and needing to rethink their outlook on organised events. I swear most of the trouble prior to/during/after these events all come from non-participants. Morons. camerajuan
  • Score: 13

12:07pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that !
yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07)
annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse!
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that ![/p][/quote]yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07) annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse! Norwegian Saint
  • Score: -1

12:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

12:13pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

redsnapper wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter)

BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events.

Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.
Unfortunately, Downfader, Graham Simmons, New Forest Cyclist, and Gingercyclist spent years on this forum with their aggressive pro-cyclist anti-driver campaigns, arrogantly demanding acceptance, cyclists' rights etc. (CUE MIKE'S IMMEDIATE DENIAL.........!) Consequently, cycling "facism" in Southampton is well-known and very widespread, and people don't like it. That may not be the only reason, but it is certainly a good part of it.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter) BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events. Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, Downfader, Graham Simmons, New Forest Cyclist, and Gingercyclist spent years on this forum with their aggressive pro-cyclist anti-driver campaigns, arrogantly demanding acceptance, cyclists' rights etc. (CUE MIKE'S IMMEDIATE DENIAL.........!) Consequently, cycling "facism" in Southampton is well-known and very widespread, and people don't like it. That may not be the only reason, but it is certainly a good part of it. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -14

12:20pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that !
yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07)
annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse!
My comment seems to have hit the spot !

So......if you can't be bothered to spell correctly when you write, you must be a mess as you probably don't wash, dress, or get out of bed to go to the toilet.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that ![/p][/quote]yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07) annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse![/p][/quote]My comment seems to have hit the spot ! So......if you can't be bothered to spell correctly when you write, you must be a mess as you probably don't wash, dress, or get out of bed to go to the toilet. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -17

12:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
Norwegian Saint wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that !
yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07)
annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse!
My comment seems to have hit the spot !

So......if you can't be bothered to spell correctly when you write, you must be a mess as you probably don't wash, dress, or get out of bed to go to the toilet.
Bit judgemental don't you think?!

Maybe instead of grammatical checks on every post you could provide your opinion and input to the story? Y'know, instead of wasting space?
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Minus 23.....TWENTY-THREE ! Just for trying to introduce a bit of light-hearted humour into the proceedings ! We've got football hooligans, cycle hooligans, and of course the EFH - the Echo Forum Hooligans, all looking to promote extensive hostility whenever they get the chance. Have you noticed people use *'s in place of letters when they want to say something offensive ? We all know what they mean, don't we ? So to the yobs that spoil things here I say " **** *** *** ******* ******* !" I'm sure you're able to translate that ![/p][/quote]yaw wong egaain... ye aint menis twintytree... yer menis turtyfife! (13:07) annd itaint a speelin tist U arrrse![/p][/quote]My comment seems to have hit the spot ! So......if you can't be bothered to spell correctly when you write, you must be a mess as you probably don't wash, dress, or get out of bed to go to the toilet.[/p][/quote]Bit judgemental don't you think?! Maybe instead of grammatical checks on every post you could provide your opinion and input to the story? Y'know, instead of wasting space? camerajuan
  • Score: 16

12:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

For pity sake says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I feel I should point out that the adjective "surrealistic" should not have a capital and you should not put spaces before question marks or exclamation marks.
Stay in after school.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I feel I should point out that the adjective "surrealistic" should not have a capital and you should not put spaces before question marks or exclamation marks. Stay in after school. For pity sake
  • Score: 13

12:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -12

12:41pm Mon 14 Apr 14

RomseyKeith says...

If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots.
If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 19

12:45pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Hi, rightway. Long time no see ? Hope you are well.

Tell me, what has happened to Stillness ? And Georgem ? Or are they simply re-branded ? That "Gilbert Ratchet" sounds remarkably like Georgem.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Hi, rightway. Long time no see ? Hope you are well. Tell me, what has happened to Stillness ? And Georgem ? Or are they simply re-branded ? That "Gilbert Ratchet" sounds remarkably like Georgem. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -10

12:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

RomseyKeith wrote:
If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots.
You are right. Completely ridiculous. Foolish. Tackless - oops !
[quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots.[/p][/quote]You are right. Completely ridiculous. Foolish. Tackless - oops ! Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -9

12:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

RomseyKeith wrote:
If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots.
Let's try again. Totally agree with you. You've summed it up perfectly. Hit the nail on - oh no ! Sorry !
[quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: If one of the grounds for the protests is the disruption and spooking to the animals, then what do they think a tack in the foot/paw/hoof is going to do once one of the Forest's many wild animals trotts innocently across the affected area. Idiots. Selfish, inconsiderate idiots.[/p][/quote]Let's try again. Totally agree with you. You've summed it up perfectly. Hit the nail on - oh no ! Sorry ! Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -11

12:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing. Georgethepie
  • Score: -12

1:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
Jesus christ, you again.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone.[/p][/quote]Jesus christ, you again. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 2

1:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Anybody who has home insurance has bicycle insurance. Do some research before mouthing off lest ye come off as an ignorant buffoon.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Anybody who has home insurance has bicycle insurance. Do some research before mouthing off lest ye come off as an ignorant buffoon. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 4

1:05pm Mon 14 Apr 14

caer caradoc says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
When people go to the length of endangering lives through such irresponsible and criminal action, it goes to demonstrate that they have lost the argument.

If there are complaints against Wiggle are legitimate, it will clearly become more difficult for those voices to be heard.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]When people go to the length of endangering lives through such irresponsible and criminal action, it goes to demonstrate that they have lost the argument. If there are complaints against Wiggle are legitimate, it will clearly become more difficult for those voices to be heard. caer caradoc
  • Score: 9

1:05pm Mon 14 Apr 14

good-gosh says...

I very much doubt that the culprit was local – he'd get no respect from anyone. Far more likely to be a retard from outside the district.
I very much doubt that the culprit was local – he'd get no respect from anyone. Far more likely to be a retard from outside the district. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation

"Community

9. Registration

When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering.

You can only access the registration areas of the site if:

your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site;
you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site;
you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;
you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user.
If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice.

10. Cancellation or suspension

We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site."

If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone.[/p][/quote]Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation "Community 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. You can only access the registration areas of the site if: your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. 10. Cancellation or suspension We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site." If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 4

1:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

SaffaInTheUk says...

It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.
It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on. SaffaInTheUk
  • Score: -6

1:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

1:13pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

SaffaInTheUk wrote:
It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.
If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.
[quote][p][bold]SaffaInTheUk[/bold] wrote: It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.[/p][/quote]If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

GrahamSimmons wrote:
SaffaInTheUk wrote:
It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.
If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.
Good advice for those on bicycles who seem to need a sterile area around them to allow quick changes of direction when they suddenly spot something instead of reading the road ahead and making a controlled move in ample time.
[quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaffaInTheUk[/bold] wrote: It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.[/p][/quote]If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.[/p][/quote]Good advice for those on bicycles who seem to need a sterile area around them to allow quick changes of direction when they suddenly spot something instead of reading the road ahead and making a controlled move in ample time. Torchie1
  • Score: -3

1:19pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone? Torchie1
  • Score: -6

1:21pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Torchie1 wrote:
GrahamSimmons wrote:
SaffaInTheUk wrote:
It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.
If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.
Good advice for those on bicycles who seem to need a sterile area around them to allow quick changes of direction when they suddenly spot something instead of reading the road ahead and making a controlled move in ample time.
There are plenty of holes out there small enough to go unnoticed until six feet away but large enough to cause temporary loss of control if hit. Give cyclists room. Also, encourage any cyclists you know to ride at least three feet from the side of the road to ensure they are not passed dangerously by other road users - they'll be much safer.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaffaInTheUk[/bold] wrote: It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.[/p][/quote]If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.[/p][/quote]Good advice for those on bicycles who seem to need a sterile area around them to allow quick changes of direction when they suddenly spot something instead of reading the road ahead and making a controlled move in ample time.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of holes out there small enough to go unnoticed until six feet away but large enough to cause temporary loss of control if hit. Give cyclists room. Also, encourage any cyclists you know to ride at least three feet from the side of the road to ensure they are not passed dangerously by other road users - they'll be much safer. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 9

1:23pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Mandy, the more you argue against negative responses the more you will receive! (-45 and counting)
This is not a site for an english lesson... if it was nobody would be working at the Daily Echo.... hmmmm, why don't you apply for a position there?
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Mandy, the more you argue against negative responses the more you will receive! (-45 and counting) This is not a site for an english lesson... if it was nobody would be working at the Daily Echo.... hmmmm, why don't you apply for a position there? Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 18

1:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?[/p][/quote]So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 7

1:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

camerajuan wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?!
#rekt
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?[/p][/quote]So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?![/p][/quote]#rekt GrahamSimmons
  • Score: -3

1:48pm Mon 14 Apr 14

kiddynamite says...

Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!!
Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!! kiddynamite
  • Score: -9

1:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
Camerajuan i am sorry my views offend you. But I'm sure as a passionate supporter of the push bike you must be able to understand the view of residents and motorists. Yes you have good and bad in all but sadly it's the bad people always remember.
Until recently I spent many a day working in the city and I was amazed at not only the stupid driving but the stupid riding. These idiots will very happily lock horns with something that can weight up to 44 tons or more riding up the inside or jumping red lights and then complain if they survive being knocked off. You jump on the defensive but the countryside is much the same.
Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road and it annoys people.
As I said their can never be a excuse for putting lives at risk but people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little to no consequences with this becoming the ultimate result.
As for insurance I have know idea as I'm sure you don't maybe it's 1 maybe it's a 1000 but I sure as hell know it's not all and if you want to use the road it shouldn't matter if your on a bike, tractor, lorry, horse or mobility scooter insurance should be a minimum requirement along with a proficiency test.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?[/p][/quote]Camerajuan i am sorry my views offend you. But I'm sure as a passionate supporter of the push bike you must be able to understand the view of residents and motorists. Yes you have good and bad in all but sadly it's the bad people always remember. Until recently I spent many a day working in the city and I was amazed at not only the stupid driving but the stupid riding. These idiots will very happily lock horns with something that can weight up to 44 tons or more riding up the inside or jumping red lights and then complain if they survive being knocked off. You jump on the defensive but the countryside is much the same. Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road and it annoys people. As I said their can never be a excuse for putting lives at risk but people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little to no consequences with this becoming the ultimate result. As for insurance I have know idea as I'm sure you don't maybe it's 1 maybe it's a 1000 but I sure as hell know it's not all and if you want to use the road it shouldn't matter if your on a bike, tractor, lorry, horse or mobility scooter insurance should be a minimum requirement along with a proficiency test. Georgethepie
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!!
Well someone has let their 5 yr old play with their ipad again!
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!![/p][/quote]Well someone has let their 5 yr old play with their ipad again! camerajuan
  • Score: 3

2:02pm Mon 14 Apr 14

jimbobbo says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite. jimbobbo
  • Score: 8

2:06pm Mon 14 Apr 14

kiddynamite says...

camerajuan wrote:
kiddynamite wrote:
Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!!
Well someone has let their 5 yr old play with their ipad again!
Whatever,im still laughing!!!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!![/p][/quote]Well someone has let their 5 yr old play with their ipad again![/p][/quote]Whatever,im still laughing!!! kiddynamite
  • Score: -3

2:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Dave Juson says...

Having read through the above I have realised there is a consensus of sorts: ban bicycles; motorised vehicles; horse riding or any horse drawn vehicles; pedestrians; the residents and domesticated animals and the New Forest would be a perfectly nice place to visit, if only you could find somebody to give you permission to enter it.
Having read through the above I have realised there is a consensus of sorts: ban bicycles; motorised vehicles; horse riding or any horse drawn vehicles; pedestrians; the residents and domesticated animals and the New Forest would be a perfectly nice place to visit, if only you could find somebody to give you permission to enter it. Dave Juson
  • Score: 8

2:34pm Mon 14 Apr 14

rightway says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Hi, rightway. Long time no see ? Hope you are well.

Tell me, what has happened to Stillness ? And Georgem ? Or are they simply re-branded ? That "Gilbert Ratchet" sounds remarkably like Georgem.
Very well thanks, and you?
Good to see you're back ruffling a few feathers, keep up the good work.
Like myself I think many of the regulars have lost a little interest and now rarely comment, so please carry on bringing a little spark into the lives of the key board warriors.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Hi, rightway. Long time no see ? Hope you are well. Tell me, what has happened to Stillness ? And Georgem ? Or are they simply re-branded ? That "Gilbert Ratchet" sounds remarkably like Georgem.[/p][/quote]Very well thanks, and you? Good to see you're back ruffling a few feathers, keep up the good work. Like myself I think many of the regulars have lost a little interest and now rarely comment, so please carry on bringing a little spark into the lives of the key board warriors. rightway
  • Score: -7

2:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

S Pance says...

sburman wrote:
How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people.
Entirely agree
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people.[/p][/quote]Entirely agree S Pance
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

GrahamSimmons wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation

"Community

9. Registration

When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering.

You can only access the registration areas of the site if:

your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site;
you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site;
you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;
you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user.
If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice.

10. Cancellation or suspension

We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site."

If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.
The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo.

Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you.

They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power.

Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me.

Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone.[/p][/quote]Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation "Community 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. You can only access the registration areas of the site if: your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. 10. Cancellation or suspension We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site." If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.[/p][/quote]The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo. Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you. They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power. Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me. Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -7

2:46pm Mon 14 Apr 14

lowe esteem says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
There were lots of strange "animals" running around London yesterday. Did anyone complain?
Probably. But I think a general acceptance has evolved for this uniquely combined charity money spinner and world elite athletics event, don't you?
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: There were lots of strange "animals" running around London yesterday. Did anyone complain?[/p][/quote]Probably. But I think a general acceptance has evolved for this uniquely combined charity money spinner and world elite athletics event, don't you? lowe esteem
  • Score: 1

2:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

S Pance wrote:
sburman wrote:
How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people.
Entirely agree
Very laudable comment,but this a battle of the middle classes,very little magnanimity involved.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: How often do these Cyclists hold their mass get togethers, once, twice a year. Surely the locals and the organisers can come to some agreement. There are other mass evnts that disrupt local life ( Cockoo Fair at Downton springs to mind ) but are not subject to this stupidity. Surely cyclists can be more responsible and locals can find ways of even benifiting from the influx of people.[/p][/quote]Entirely agree[/p][/quote]Very laudable comment,but this a battle of the middle classes,very little magnanimity involved. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

dolomiteman says...

wav3ydave wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
"the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like"

You haven't been in many pubs, have you Mandy?
No because 'Mandy' stays at home with her friends playing 'forum time'

welcome back Mary.
[quote][p][bold]wav3ydave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]"the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like" You haven't been in many pubs, have you Mandy?[/p][/quote]No because 'Mandy' stays at home with her friends playing 'forum time' welcome back Mary. dolomiteman
  • Score: 2

3:12pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
[quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ? Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -7

3:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

QwertyWerty says...

Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do?

I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune.

Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas.
Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do? I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune. Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas. QwertyWerty
  • Score: 5

3:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

jimbobbo says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are. jimbobbo
  • Score: 7

3:42pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

QwertyWerty wrote:
Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do?

I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune.

Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas.
'Life threatening illness' ? It's a good job that they didn't succumb to this illness when halfway around the 80 mile course knowing that there was a 40 mile trip back to their car.
[quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do? I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune. Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas.[/p][/quote]'Life threatening illness' ? It's a good job that they didn't succumb to this illness when halfway around the 80 mile course knowing that there was a 40 mile trip back to their car. Torchie1
  • Score: -2

3:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

thegore1 says...

For the Record: The incident with the nails was NOT in the village of Bransgore. It was along the road to Braggers Wood in the Parish of Sopley.
For the Record: The incident with the nails was NOT in the village of Bransgore. It was along the road to Braggers Wood in the Parish of Sopley. thegore1
  • Score: 4

3:56pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

camerajuan wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?!
I can see that 98% of road users prefer motorised transport to pedaling a bicycle and that's all the logic I'm interested in. In the final analysis I think you'll find that might is right however much it upsets you.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?[/p][/quote]So as motorists make up over 90% of road users surely there needs to be more emphasis on safer driving than safer cycling?!?! Too logical?!?![/p][/quote]I can see that 98% of road users prefer motorised transport to pedaling a bicycle and that's all the logic I'm interested in. In the final analysis I think you'll find that might is right however much it upsets you. Torchie1
  • Score: -8

4:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ?

It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy.

You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?).

Now you been trolled !

Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
[quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ! Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -9

4:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

rich the stitch says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ?

It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy.

You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?).

Now you been trolled !

Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
Did someone say forum time?
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]Did someone say forum time? rich the stitch
  • Score: 6

4:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

hmw says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ?

It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy.

You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?).

Now you been trolled !

Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
You talk too much
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]You talk too much hmw
  • Score: 10

4:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

CivicCentered says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental...

I'm sure you're not though...
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental... I'm sure you're not though... CivicCentered
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police.
Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour?
Do you really want to be associated with scum like this?
What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge?
So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails.
Total Total scum.
I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H
ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.
Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police. Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour? Do you really want to be associated with scum like this? What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge? So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails. Total Total scum. I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm. loosehead
  • Score: 12

4:23pm Mon 14 Apr 14

QwertyWerty says...

Torchie1 wrote:
QwertyWerty wrote:
Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do?

I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune.

Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas.
'Life threatening illness' ? It's a good job that they didn't succumb to this illness when halfway around the 80 mile course knowing that there was a 40 mile trip back to their car.
Nice to see your compassionate side there. Just because people have an illness, it doesn't mean that they can't partake in such events.

Small minded individual alert...
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QwertyWerty[/bold] wrote: Ah. Well done for not only putting cyclists lives at risk, but motorists too. Which isn't what I'm presuming you were wanting to do? I saw a few arrows pointing the wrong way, so corrected them and told the poor cyclists that had gone 3 miles in the wrong direction of their misfortune. Have you ever thought about the fact that a cyclist being pointed in the wrong direction may have a life threatening illness...? If they are miles off course, you are endangering their life... As well as tacking their tyres and giving them no hope of getting help in the black spot areas.[/p][/quote]'Life threatening illness' ? It's a good job that they didn't succumb to this illness when halfway around the 80 mile course knowing that there was a 40 mile trip back to their car.[/p][/quote]Nice to see your compassionate side there. Just because people have an illness, it doesn't mean that they can't partake in such events. Small minded individual alert... QwertyWerty
  • Score: 6

4:24pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

loosehead wrote:
Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police.
Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour?
Do you really want to be associated with scum like this?
What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge?
So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails.
Total Total scum.
I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H

ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.
One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police. Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour? Do you really want to be associated with scum like this? What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge? So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails. Total Total scum. I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far! camerajuan
  • Score: 8

4:34pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Baybrit says...

All reasonable people condemn vandalism and anything that might cause harm to others. However. when there are problems on the cyclng side, they seem to be dismissed by that cycling side as 'oh just a few bad apples ruining it for the rest' seeming to suggest that cyclists are in fact the Son of God in disguise. However, when there are problems on the New Forest side, defenders of the cycling side seem to trumpet and insist that it is the entire New Forest community are responsible, 'Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour'; 'They don't like you city folk there'. The words hypocrisy and double-standard seem remarkably appropriate.
All reasonable people condemn vandalism and anything that might cause harm to others. However. when there are problems on the cyclng side, they seem to be dismissed by that cycling side as 'oh just a few bad apples ruining it for the rest' seeming to suggest that cyclists are in fact the Son of God in disguise. However, when there are problems on the New Forest side, defenders of the cycling side seem to trumpet and insist that it is the entire New Forest community are responsible, 'Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour'; 'They don't like you city folk there'. The words hypocrisy and double-standard seem remarkably appropriate. Baybrit
  • Score: 6

4:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

camerajuan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police.
Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour?
Do you really want to be associated with scum like this?
What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge?
So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails.
Total Total scum.
I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H


ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.
One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far!
Agree good post... but just wait for "egghead" Mandy Warhol to pick up on your poor grammar and spelling... I can hear her now...
"Ockey???, if it was my school... blahblahblah..."
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police. Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour? Do you really want to be associated with scum like this? What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge? So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails. Total Total scum. I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far![/p][/quote]Agree good post... but just wait for "egghead" Mandy Warhol to pick up on your poor grammar and spelling... I can hear her now... "Ockey???, if it was my school... blahblahblah..." Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 5

4:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Hamwic says...

GrahamSimmons wrote:
SaffaInTheUk wrote:
It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.
If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.
Although some people are lucky enough to be able to own/ride horses (if they wish) not all of them are lucky enough to be able to keep them in a location where there is no need to ride on the roads.

Where I keep my horses near Bramshaw I am surrounded by miles of beautiful countryside however I find it necessary to ride along the road to access the vast majority of this. I make sure I'm always courteous to other road users and where possible move off of the road to let them past especially if I feel that they may upset/spook my horse - I do not want to be on a horse jumping in front of a car and I do not want the driver & passengers of that car to experience it either.

Unfortunately bikes travel with very little noise and so you do not have much if any notice that they are behind/passing you meaning that both you and your horse jump (spook). I am very lucky that although in the Bramshaw area we regular meet a lot of large groups of cyclists they are always courteous and alert us of their approach. If all of the wiggle cyclists showed the same respect of other road users my small concern for the event would disappear.
[quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaffaInTheUk[/bold] wrote: It was this event that caused my horse to spook and rear almost verticle, as a result of this I fell off and have injured my back. A group of cyclists, in competition outfit came racing past us. No respect for other road users. And yes, I have filed a complaint to the organizers. Doubt little will be done, cyclists all have this holier than thou attitude going on.[/p][/quote]If you can't control your vehicle, don't take it out on the public highway.[/p][/quote]Although some people are lucky enough to be able to own/ride horses (if they wish) not all of them are lucky enough to be able to keep them in a location where there is no need to ride on the roads. Where I keep my horses near Bramshaw I am surrounded by miles of beautiful countryside however I find it necessary to ride along the road to access the vast majority of this. I make sure I'm always courteous to other road users and where possible move off of the road to let them past especially if I feel that they may upset/spook my horse - I do not want to be on a horse jumping in front of a car and I do not want the driver & passengers of that car to experience it either. Unfortunately bikes travel with very little noise and so you do not have much if any notice that they are behind/passing you meaning that both you and your horse jump (spook). I am very lucky that although in the Bramshaw area we regular meet a lot of large groups of cyclists they are always courteous and alert us of their approach. If all of the wiggle cyclists showed the same respect of other road users my small concern for the event would disappear. Hamwic
  • Score: 8

4:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police.
Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour?
Do you really want to be associated with scum like this?
What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge?
So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails.
Total Total scum.
I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H



ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.
One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far!
Agree good post... but just wait for "egghead" Mandy Warhol to pick up on your poor grammar and spelling... I can hear her now...
"Ockey???, if it was my school... blahblahblah..."
For some reason loosehead's computer has pressed return before adding his post to the article. This has happened to many other users and myself prior to this occurring and I bet it will happen again.

Main point being - anyone attacking these events by potentially damaging people's property - Can we now attack YOUR hobby which we disagree with for no reason by damaging things YOU own that cost YOU money?!?! Or is that vandalism and punishable by law? Think about it.

Children.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Who ever did it & some one reading this article & these posts knows who they are you're scum & should be reported to the police. Last time we had Anti Cycling events posters going on about excrement & bad behaviour are you telling me this isn't bad behaviour? Do you really want to be associated with scum like this? What would you think if the cyclists who've been hurt by this scums actions & their friends went out targeting cars & horses in a indiscriminate act of revenge? So come on tell the police or shut up & one day don't be surprised to hear of a fatal accident caused by scum putting down tacks & nails. Total Total scum. I don't like Cricket,Basketball,H ockey or Yachting but I don't go & attempt to ruin any of these sports because I know people enjoy them & are causing me no harm.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts on this article and topic in general by far![/p][/quote]Agree good post... but just wait for "egghead" Mandy Warhol to pick up on your poor grammar and spelling... I can hear her now... "Ockey???, if it was my school... blahblahblah..."[/p][/quote]For some reason loosehead's computer has pressed return before adding his post to the article. This has happened to many other users and myself prior to this occurring and I bet it will happen again. Main point being - anyone attacking these events by potentially damaging people's property - Can we now attack YOUR hobby which we disagree with for no reason by damaging things YOU own that cost YOU money?!?! Or is that vandalism and punishable by law? Think about it. Children. camerajuan
  • Score: 3

4:45pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mandy Warhol says...

CivicCentered wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental...

I'm sure you're not though...
No, not in a manic voice, in an annoyingly calm voice.

Don't you recognise a Stewart Lee reference when you see one ? Check out his routines on You Tube.
[quote][p][bold]CivicCentered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental... I'm sure you're not though...[/p][/quote]No, not in a manic voice, in an annoyingly calm voice. Don't you recognise a Stewart Lee reference when you see one ? Check out his routines on You Tube. Mandy Warhol
  • Score: -5

4:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Parrotgone says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?!

This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting.

Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike.

Grow up.
Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?
Camerajuan i am sorry my views offend you. But I'm sure as a passionate supporter of the push bike you must be able to understand the view of residents and motorists. Yes you have good and bad in all but sadly it's the bad people always remember.
Until recently I spent many a day working in the city and I was amazed at not only the stupid driving but the stupid riding. These idiots will very happily lock horns with something that can weight up to 44 tons or more riding up the inside or jumping red lights and then complain if they survive being knocked off. You jump on the defensive but the countryside is much the same.
Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road and it annoys people.
As I said their can never be a excuse for putting lives at risk but people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little to no consequences with this becoming the ultimate result.
As for insurance I have know idea as I'm sure you don't maybe it's 1 maybe it's a 1000 but I sure as hell know it's not all and if you want to use the road it shouldn't matter if your on a bike, tractor, lorry, horse or mobility scooter insurance should be a minimum requirement along with a proficiency test.
"Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road..... and people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little or no consequence". And many motorists don't seem totally oblivious as to how to drive appropriately around cyclists, and to resent having to share the road with anyone not in another motor vehicle - be that cyclists or pedestrians.
So, where does that get any of us?
And, although you say cyclists do as they will while facing little or no consequence, you've also mention they consequence they do face - whether as a result of their own fault or someone elses - collision potentially invovling serious injury and possibly death.
Now, if the resentment of motorists were the result of cyclists doing as they please you'd expect that they'd respect good cycling. Unfortunately, whilst some cleary do, and give ample consideration to cyclists, many don't and/or have no appreciation of what in fact constitutes good cycling, nor that first and foremost cyclists have to look out for their own safety. The latter includes not doing things simply because a motorist believes they should - no matter how much that motorists grimaces, gesticulares and berates them.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Change the record! Who are they menacing?? Do you know none of them have insurance?!?! This has been done way too many times and it would be nice if you could read up on a subject before commenting. Cars crash more often and create more destruction/death than any cycling accident ever will. Shall we take matters into our own hands there and sabotage the roads? No. Because that's criminal damage. Same as when you damage someone's road bike. Grow up.[/p][/quote]Statiscally you are correct but as bicycles only account for 2% of road users! is this a real surprise to anyone?[/p][/quote]Camerajuan i am sorry my views offend you. But I'm sure as a passionate supporter of the push bike you must be able to understand the view of residents and motorists. Yes you have good and bad in all but sadly it's the bad people always remember. Until recently I spent many a day working in the city and I was amazed at not only the stupid driving but the stupid riding. These idiots will very happily lock horns with something that can weight up to 44 tons or more riding up the inside or jumping red lights and then complain if they survive being knocked off. You jump on the defensive but the countryside is much the same. Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road and it annoys people. As I said their can never be a excuse for putting lives at risk but people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little to no consequences with this becoming the ultimate result. As for insurance I have know idea as I'm sure you don't maybe it's 1 maybe it's a 1000 but I sure as hell know it's not all and if you want to use the road it shouldn't matter if your on a bike, tractor, lorry, horse or mobility scooter insurance should be a minimum requirement along with a proficiency test.[/p][/quote]"Many cyclists don't care about others or the rules of the road..... and people resent cyclists doing as they please while facing little or no consequence". And many motorists don't seem totally oblivious as to how to drive appropriately around cyclists, and to resent having to share the road with anyone not in another motor vehicle - be that cyclists or pedestrians. So, where does that get any of us? And, although you say cyclists do as they will while facing little or no consequence, you've also mention they consequence they do face - whether as a result of their own fault or someone elses - collision potentially invovling serious injury and possibly death. Now, if the resentment of motorists were the result of cyclists doing as they please you'd expect that they'd respect good cycling. Unfortunately, whilst some cleary do, and give ample consideration to cyclists, many don't and/or have no appreciation of what in fact constitutes good cycling, nor that first and foremost cyclists have to look out for their own safety. The latter includes not doing things simply because a motorist believes they should - no matter how much that motorists grimaces, gesticulares and berates them. Parrotgone
  • Score: 4

4:50pm Mon 14 Apr 14

teslpl says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause. teslpl
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 14 Apr 14

teslpl says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause. teslpl
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Mon 14 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
CivicCentered wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental...

I'm sure you're not though...
No, not in a manic voice, in an annoyingly calm voice.

Don't you recognise a Stewart Lee reference when you see one ? Check out his routines on You Tube.
Not everyone memorises a mediocre comic's routines to the point of recognising their stylings in a failed attempt at humour!
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CivicCentered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]Wow... Read that in a manic voice and you sound proper mental... I'm sure you're not though...[/p][/quote]No, not in a manic voice, in an annoyingly calm voice. Don't you recognise a Stewart Lee reference when you see one ? Check out his routines on You Tube.[/p][/quote]Not everyone memorises a mediocre comic's routines to the point of recognising their stylings in a failed attempt at humour! camerajuan
  • Score: 5

4:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

thegore1 wrote:
For the Record: The incident with the nails was NOT in the village of Bransgore. It was along the road to Braggers Wood in the Parish of Sopley.
There be Dragons!
[quote][p][bold]thegore1[/bold] wrote: For the Record: The incident with the nails was NOT in the village of Bransgore. It was along the road to Braggers Wood in the Parish of Sopley.[/p][/quote]There be Dragons! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

4:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

thegore1 says...

saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
Dear Mr Saint, There is an inaccuracy with the reporting. The Echo have relied on the Police report which says Bransgore, however, it was not in Bransgore, it was along Braggers Lane in Sopley and well out of both villages so it was likely not to be a local. Please feel free to patronise both villages as they are inhabited by very tolerant and welcoming people. PS Monkey welcome as well!
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]Dear Mr Saint, There is an inaccuracy with the reporting. The Echo have relied on the Police report which says Bransgore, however, it was not in Bransgore, it was along Braggers Lane in Sopley and well out of both villages so it was likely not to be a local. Please feel free to patronise both villages as they are inhabited by very tolerant and welcoming people. PS Monkey welcome as well! thegore1
  • Score: 5

5:05pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Parrotgone says...

teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past. Parrotgone
  • Score: 5

5:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

thesouth says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
What a looser
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]What a looser thesouth
  • Score: 4

5:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
Careful you will have the Lycra brigade hunting you down for making comments like that.
Remember cyclists are never in the wrong it's everyone else's fault.
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]Careful you will have the Lycra brigade hunting you down for making comments like that. Remember cyclists are never in the wrong it's everyone else's fault. Georgethepie
  • Score: 5

5:25pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
[quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public Georgethepie
  • Score: -1

5:41pm Mon 14 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

thesouth wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
What a looser
Said by a loser!
[quote][p][bold]thesouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]What a looser[/p][/quote]Said by a loser! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -1

5:52pm Mon 14 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

I loved that van that was seen in Portswood for a long time, owned by a tyre repair company, it advertised Puncher Repairs on the side, presumably as a result of the deeds of an angry cyclist?
I loved that van that was seen in Portswood for a long time, owned by a tyre repair company, it advertised Puncher Repairs on the side, presumably as a result of the deeds of an angry cyclist? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -1

5:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

The Wickham Man says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Oh shut up with the uninformed drivel will you. You aren't in the industry - you 've never even seen an oilwell - you could not cite an actual sourse reference for any of the spurious claims youi and the army of equally uninformed idiots are making - you are all just endlessly googling and quoting from each other. I drive past Humbly Grove well head every day and you would not even know it is there. There is no pollution,no flaring, no unsightly pipework, not many lorries......a bit like Wytch Farm in fact. And "A million times worse??" You are an idiot or a liar, but I'll be generous and stick at well meaning but misguided and somewhat hysterically overreacting idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]Oh shut up with the uninformed drivel will you. You aren't in the industry - you 've never even seen an oilwell - you could not cite an actual sourse reference for any of the spurious claims youi and the army of equally uninformed idiots are making - you are all just endlessly googling and quoting from each other. I drive past Humbly Grove well head every day and you would not even know it is there. There is no pollution,no flaring, no unsightly pipework, not many lorries......a bit like Wytch Farm in fact. And "A million times worse??" You are an idiot or a liar, but I'll be generous and stick at well meaning but misguided and somewhat hysterically overreacting idiot. The Wickham Man
  • Score: -1

6:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

For pity sake says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
jimbobbo wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you.

There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.
For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun !

The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end.

Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?
The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.
This isn't about my comment at all, is it ?

It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy.

You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?).

Now you been trolled !

Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air !
You don't put a space before a full stop so why put one before a question mark or exclamation mark?
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbobbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Why have you capitalised the 's' of surrealistic? It's not a proper noun. You can't be a very good teacher can you. There are other errors, too. Hypocrite.[/p][/quote]For a start my comment was only intended as a bit of fun ! The whole piece swings around a long, absurdly picky criticism, with an equally absurd change of heart at the very end. Long before the word "Surrealistic" became an over-used, pretentious cliché that simply meant "strange" ( as in Oh wow, man, it was like - you know - kind of - you know - like surreal, man ! ) it referred to a particular style of art. The Surrealists ( Di Chirico, Pierre Roy (my favourite), Dali, etc )created fantasy works, often juxtaposing unrelated objects ( quote Breton "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table, etc"). When you are referencing the art movement or the style, it is appropriate to capitalise the "S". What you should have gathered from my use of the capital "S" was that I specifically meant Surrealistic, as in the art style, and not merely "strange". Think of it as being, in my mind, as beautiful as the chance encounter of saint61, a pint of beer, and a monkey in a pub. OK ?[/p][/quote]The etymology isn't important. Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are.[/p][/quote]This isn't about my comment at all, is it ? It's about you, your possible inferiority complex, perhaps intellectual jealousy. You don't know me. How do you know whether or not I am "pretending to be smarter than I actually are " ? ( "actually are" - a little joke, do you see ? Do you get it ? "Actually are" ? Do you - I should have written "actually AM", but for comic effect I wrote "are". Did you notice that ? "Are" instead of "am". You said "Just stop pretending to be smarter than you actually are." so I used your words, but - do you get it ? Do you get the joke ? Saying your word "are" instead of what I should have written, to be grammatically correct, which would have been "am". Do you get it ? Do you ? Do you ?). Now you been trolled ! Final comment : you're trolling. First day of the school holidays and you're wasting your time trolling ! Get outside ! Get some air ![/p][/quote]You don't put a space before a full stop so why put one before a question mark or exclamation mark? For pity sake
  • Score: 2

6:07pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists
Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists[/p][/quote]Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

6:10pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

redsnapper wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter)

BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events.

Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.
New Forest sits on the Wessex Shale basin but you are right about some of the forest residents.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter) BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events. Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.[/p][/quote]New Forest sits on the Wessex Shale basin but you are right about some of the forest residents. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

6:13pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter)

BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events.

Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.
Unfortunately, Downfader, Graham Simmons, New Forest Cyclist, and Gingercyclist spent years on this forum with their aggressive pro-cyclist anti-driver campaigns, arrogantly demanding acceptance, cyclists' rights etc. (CUE MIKE'S IMMEDIATE DENIAL.........!) Consequently, cycling "facism" in Southampton is well-known and very widespread, and people don't like it. That may not be the only reason, but it is certainly a good part of it.
"anti-driver campaigns"... God, with lies like that, anyone would think you were the bloody wife of Keith Peat.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]Now you really are talking rubbish ginge..and automatically becoming a member of the Forest Redneck and Nimby Association. re your moronic comments on fracking. There are roads in the forest which even in winter months are littered with rubbish thrown out of car windows by the local residents (lets face it there are not many tourists in winter) BUT IT IS THE retards spreading nails again , who are doing more damage to the Forest reputation than anything else at the moment, and nationally the New Forest will suffer as it is already becoming infamous for this stupid ongoing argument about cycling events. Everywhere else in the world seems able to run popular events whether cycling, running, county/state shows etc etc safely and properly, for the mutual benefit of residents and visitors alike but here in the dark woods of the New Forest , events like this and future ideas are at risk because dumb locals seem to be anti everything and everyone. and just want to be left alone to go and eat acorns with their hogs.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, Downfader, Graham Simmons, New Forest Cyclist, and Gingercyclist spent years on this forum with their aggressive pro-cyclist anti-driver campaigns, arrogantly demanding acceptance, cyclists' rights etc. (CUE MIKE'S IMMEDIATE DENIAL.........!) Consequently, cycling "facism" in Southampton is well-known and very widespread, and people don't like it. That may not be the only reason, but it is certainly a good part of it.[/p][/quote]"anti-driver campaigns"... God, with lies like that, anyone would think you were the bloody wife of Keith Peat. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

6:16pm Mon 14 Apr 14

freefinker says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
GrahamSimmons wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation

"Community

9. Registration

When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering.

You can only access the registration areas of the site if:

your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site;
you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site;
you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;
you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user.
If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice.

10. Cancellation or suspension

We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site."

If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.
The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo.

Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you.

They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power.

Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me.

Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated.
zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz.
zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz
zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz
zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone.[/p][/quote]Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation "Community 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. You can only access the registration areas of the site if: your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. 10. Cancellation or suspension We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site." If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.[/p][/quote]The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo. Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you. They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power. Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me. Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated.[/p][/quote]zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz. zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz zzzz, zzzz, zzzz, zzzz freefinker
  • Score: 8

6:20pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

6:48pm Mon 14 Apr 14

hythehic says...

Bingo from Sholing wrote:
That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone.
Errr it has always been a public space......
[quote][p][bold]Bingo from Sholing[/bold] wrote: That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone.[/p][/quote]Errr it has always been a public space...... hythehic
  • Score: 4

7:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
So what happens when one that isn't,causes an accident Ginge..just asking?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]So what happens when one that isn't,causes an accident Ginge..just asking? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

7:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
So what happens when one that isn't,causes an accident Ginge..just asking?
Ask them IF it ever happens.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]So what happens when one that isn't,causes an accident Ginge..just asking?[/p][/quote]Ask them IF it ever happens. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

7:11pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

hythehic wrote:
Bingo from Sholing wrote:
That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone.
Errr it has always been a public space......
William the First might have something to say about that. ;0)
[quote][p][bold]hythehic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bingo from Sholing[/bold] wrote: That was the trouble with making the New Forest a National Park. It is a public amenity now and the residents who backed the change will regret having done so. A park is a park, and the ambience of the Forest as we knew it, has gone.[/p][/quote]Errr it has always been a public space......[/p][/quote]William the First might have something to say about that. ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

7:15pm Mon 14 Apr 14

teslpl says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return. teslpl
  • Score: -3

7:20pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

7:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one?
(And don't say,laying down.)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one? (And don't say,laying down.) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

7:48pm Mon 14 Apr 14

mike coll says...

Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them?
Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent.
Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,
Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them? Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent. Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE, mike coll
  • Score: -8

7:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one?
(And don't say,laying down.)
If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one? (And don't say,laying down.)[/p][/quote]If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 8

7:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

teslpl says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you? teslpl
  • Score: -9

7:50pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

mike coll wrote:
Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them?
Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent.
Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,
I have job hunting to do and interviews to attend.
[quote][p][bold]mike coll[/bold] wrote: Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them? Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent. Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,[/p][/quote]I have job hunting to do and interviews to attend. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

7:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

mike coll wrote:
Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them?
Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent.
Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,
A large powerful magnet, on the end of a stick is the best way,scanned over the ground slowly like a metal detector.
[quote][p][bold]mike coll[/bold] wrote: Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them? Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent. Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,[/p][/quote]A large powerful magnet, on the end of a stick is the best way,scanned over the ground slowly like a metal detector. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 2

8:01pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

teslpl wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?
I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road.
Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it?
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?[/p][/quote]I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road. Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 6

8:04pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one?
(And don't say,laying down.)
If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.
So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one? (And don't say,laying down.)[/p][/quote]If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.[/p][/quote]So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -6

8:22pm Mon 14 Apr 14

teslpl says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?
I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road.
Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it?
Argumentative out of work and ginger,not a lot going for you!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?[/p][/quote]I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road. Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it?[/p][/quote]Argumentative out of work and ginger,not a lot going for you! teslpl
  • Score: -6

8:33pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one?
(And don't say,laying down.)
If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.
So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then?
No, because cyclists pose little to no risk to others, hence companies LITERALLY give it away.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one? (And don't say,laying down.)[/p][/quote]If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.[/p][/quote]So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then?[/p][/quote]No, because cyclists pose little to no risk to others, hence companies LITERALLY give it away. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 6

8:35pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

teslpl wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?
I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road.
Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it?
Argumentative out of work and ginger,not a lot going for you!
More going for me than a stupid, small minded, arrogant tw@t like you.
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish,'cycle paths are more dangerous' not running alongside of the A35 between Lyndhurst and Ashurst where the only thing you are likely to meet is the odd pedestrian, and it runs in an almost level and straight line for about four miles.The motorists would not barge by if occasionally you moved over don't you wonder why they lose patience with you?[/p][/quote]I witnessed first hand how cyclepaths are often dangerous, a friend of mine was almost hit by a car pulling ACROSS the cycle path from a driveway on the Avenue without looking and I MYSELF was almost hit by a small van as it came out of the petrol station up the road from where Haskins by West End used to be because the driver was going too fast and wasn't paying attention, so that's one danger, another is the fact that motorists are NOT going to be checking along the paths, they're more concerned about what's on the road, cycle paths are also often uneven and full of glass and other things that aren't good for tyres OR skin, not to mention the paths often end without wrning and many want you to make impossibly tight turns and dive into the road. Why would I move over if the road's too narrow to pass safely anyway, I'm on a dual carriageway, it's not safe for anyone to pass me or if I'm keeping up with traffic or even overtaking it?[/p][/quote]Argumentative out of work and ginger,not a lot going for you![/p][/quote]More going for me than a stupid, small minded, arrogant tw@t like you. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

8:43pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Parrotgone wrote:
teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road.
Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.
It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public
The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.
Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.
The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one?
(And don't say,laying down.)
If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.
So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then?
No, because cyclists pose little to no risk to others, hence companies LITERALLY give it away.
Well insurance companies need to review their policy very quickly then because as a pedestrian I encounter cyclists riding illegally on the pavements everyday,but I've never had to step aside for a car.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parrotgone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]There is no obligation, in law or in the highway code, for cyclists to use cyclepaths. It's entirely at their discretion whether they do or choose to cycle on/in the road. Cars, on the otherhand, are required to give cyclists ample room when passing, which means, in practice, there's little difference whether cyclists are single file or two abreast - as the room you should be giving them is the same as you would a car, meaning you should wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic that will allow you to pass having crossed the centre of the road, not simply squeezed past.[/p][/quote]It should be law that people can't ride on the roads without insurance and a proficiency tests. It should also be law that an OAPs can't wear Lycra in public[/p][/quote]The cycle paths are provided for cyclist safety so why don't you use them.You wonder why motorists get impatient when following cyclists that continue to ride two abreast on a busy road (and yes I know you are entitled too) instead of showing a little common decency and let the motorist by,show the motorist a little respect and they will show you respect in return.[/p][/quote]Don't have to use cycle paths and more often than not, they are actually MORE dangerous than using the road, also, common decency goes both ways, motorists should show some by being patient(like the majority are) rather than trying to barge past.[/p][/quote]The pavements are certainly more dangerous since cyclists started using them,and where does a pedestrian stand if they get hit by one? (And don't say,laying down.)[/p][/quote]If we had strict liability laws then a pedestrian would stand to gain compensation, also they would be hoping around, holding one foot in slight pain cussing and cursing after the cyclist... If the pavement was the most likely place for a pedestrian to get hit by a cyclist(more likely to get hit by a car on the pavement) but the road is the most likely place to be hit by a cyclist, ESPECIALLY if you don't LOOK before crossing.[/p][/quote]So cyclists insurance is a grey area,which seriously needs upgrading then?[/p][/quote]No, because cyclists pose little to no risk to others, hence companies LITERALLY give it away.[/p][/quote]Well insurance companies need to review their policy very quickly then because as a pedestrian I encounter cyclists riding illegally on the pavements everyday,but I've never had to step aside for a car. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -9

8:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!!
My dog was injured by these cowardly excuses for human beings last year at Boldre.

I am so glad that you find the injuring of animals, and the attempted injury of other people so funny.

Perhaps we should be seeking for the Echo to offer a reward for the prosecution of these scum?
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha love this story! Nails in the road at a bike riding event ha ha ha! So childish but so funny. I keep getting the vision of a power ranger looky likey falling off his bike because he got a flatty, ahhh too funny for a monday!!!![/p][/quote]My dog was injured by these cowardly excuses for human beings last year at Boldre. I am so glad that you find the injuring of animals, and the attempted injury of other people so funny. Perhaps we should be seeking for the Echo to offer a reward for the prosecution of these scum? DanWeston
  • Score: 15

9:05pm Mon 14 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

mike coll wrote:
Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them?
Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent.
Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,
Yes he could use his tyres to collect the tacks!
[quote][p][bold]mike coll[/bold] wrote: Has anybody gone out and tried to pick up any drawing pins etc laid by the morons before some animal be it horse or bunny has this nail like device in them which could kill them? Any offers to pick up the crap, even from the bikers who in this instance are innocent. Ginger hasnt got a lot to do, stop posting, get on your bike and get picking up this debris to help the animals. PLEASE,[/p][/quote]Yes he could use his tyres to collect the tacks! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -4

9:16pm Mon 14 Apr 14

loosehead says...

teslpl wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.
to both you posters I live in an area that has a 20mph speed limit how many car owners obey the speed limit? not many & I've had horns blown & gestures made to me for driving my car at the speed limit.
When I rode a bicycle I'd pull over if I could see I was impeding traffic,I would take side roads where possible but still some car drivers & bus drivers seemed to take great pleasure in driving me off of the road,I had a full beer can thrown at me from a car at speed luckily it missed.
So two abreast isn't bad compared to cars going at &0-100mph down a New Forest road exactly how many cyclists have killed a horse?
Try considering yourself fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in the beautiful New Forest & share this great place with others.
If you can't condone the scum that have laid tacks & nails then you are no better than the scum who did it.
Many cyclists have insurance I had a Harley Davidson with full lights on yet some idiotic driver just pulled straight out in front of me & I know of Motor cyclist who've had serious injuries through car drivers & yes all those motor cyclists had bike insurance & had a tax disc but it didn't matter & it seems the problems on the roads are cars not any form of bike.
Maybe they should organise a mobility scooter ride through the forest & then let's see what the scum do?
[quote][p][bold]teslpl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]You only have to drive between Lyndhurst and Ashurst to see their idiotic behaviour of some riding abreast on the road when there is a signposted cycle path running alongside.I agree they should pay insurance to cover any accident they cause.[/p][/quote]to both you posters I live in an area that has a 20mph speed limit how many car owners obey the speed limit? not many & I've had horns blown & gestures made to me for driving my car at the speed limit. When I rode a bicycle I'd pull over if I could see I was impeding traffic,I would take side roads where possible but still some car drivers & bus drivers seemed to take great pleasure in driving me off of the road,I had a full beer can thrown at me from a car at speed luckily it missed. So two abreast isn't bad compared to cars going at &0-100mph down a New Forest road exactly how many cyclists have killed a horse? Try considering yourself fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in the beautiful New Forest & share this great place with others. If you can't condone the scum that have laid tacks & nails then you are no better than the scum who did it. Many cyclists have insurance I had a Harley Davidson with full lights on yet some idiotic driver just pulled straight out in front of me & I know of Motor cyclist who've had serious injuries through car drivers & yes all those motor cyclists had bike insurance & had a tax disc but it didn't matter & it seems the problems on the roads are cars not any form of bike. Maybe they should organise a mobility scooter ride through the forest & then let's see what the scum do? loosehead
  • Score: 7

9:22pm Mon 14 Apr 14

loosehead says...

So quick anyone who's Anti car,Horse riding ,Tractors or Farm animals let's go sabotage them as some idiots on here think that's okay.
I admit sometimes get annoyed being stuck behind a cyclist who's bike shouldn't be on the road or they shouldn't but I don't lay traps to injure them as I also don't lay traps or verbally abuse useless car drivers.
So quick anyone who's Anti car,Horse riding ,Tractors or Farm animals let's go sabotage them as some idiots on here think that's okay. I admit sometimes get annoyed being stuck behind a cyclist who's bike shouldn't be on the road or they shouldn't but I don't lay traps to injure them as I also don't lay traps or verbally abuse useless car drivers. loosehead
  • Score: 6

9:39pm Mon 14 Apr 14

_watchman says...

These people are showing their true heraldic colours and no better than criminals.
These people are showing their true heraldic colours and no better than criminals. _watchman
  • Score: 4

10:02pm Mon 14 Apr 14

trulysaintly says...

It's quite simple really.

Idiotic behaviour by those prats in Sopley - which has done more damage to the argument against these events than anything.

Nice of the Echo to focus on the £3k donated to local charity and not on the other £50k+ made by the organisers from this event.

They must be really pleased - convincing these clever cyclists to pay £33 per head to ride on public roads....
It's quite simple really. Idiotic behaviour by those prats in Sopley - which has done more damage to the argument against these events than anything. Nice of the Echo to focus on the £3k donated to local charity and not on the other £50k+ made by the organisers from this event. They must be really pleased - convincing these clever cyclists to pay £33 per head to ride on public roads.... trulysaintly
  • Score: 3

10:20pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

FranksTank is right - the "good" residents get tarred with the same brush when irresponsible folk take dangerous action like spreading nails. I don't describe myself as "good", but certainly object to being bracketed with this irresponsible tiny minority just because I express frustration at the effects of mass cycling events on the life of the New Forest. I utterly condemn any unlawful protests. However, we who try to carry on the work of conservation of the Forest do deserve more respect from visitors. Most of the cyclists in this latest event behaved far better than the events of 2013, and it was good to exchange friendly greetings. Congratulations on the improvement! However, there is still a fairly large minoriy who let you down. For instance, on Sunday I was caught for some 5-6 miles of twisting, narrow lanes behind slow riders, with very impatient faster riders behind me. I was unable to find room to overtake the slow riders leaving the required car's width of safety space, so I was hassled all the way by impatient, tail-gating racing cyclists, trying to overtake/undertake, extremely close to my vehicle. Once I had to stop to allow an oncoming car to edge past and there was scuffling behind me as the group had to struggle to find space to put feet down. I don't think anyone fell off, but if that did happen the riders have only themselves to blame. I was unable to read their identification numbers, so this dangerous and inconsiderate riding went unreported. Until Wiggle agree to identification numbers on riders' backs, bad riders know they can get away with pretty dreadful behaviour, which lets down the considerate riders - just as nail-spreaders let "good" residents down.
FranksTank is right - the "good" residents get tarred with the same brush when irresponsible folk take dangerous action like spreading nails. I don't describe myself as "good", but certainly object to being bracketed with this irresponsible tiny minority just because I express frustration at the effects of mass cycling events on the life of the New Forest. I utterly condemn any unlawful protests. However, we who try to carry on the work of conservation of the Forest do deserve more respect from visitors. Most of the cyclists in this latest event behaved far better than the events of 2013, and it was good to exchange friendly greetings. Congratulations on the improvement! However, there is still a fairly large minoriy who let you down. For instance, on Sunday I was caught for some 5-6 miles of twisting, narrow lanes behind slow riders, with very impatient faster riders behind me. I was unable to find room to overtake the slow riders leaving the required car's width of safety space, so I was hassled all the way by impatient, tail-gating racing cyclists, trying to overtake/undertake, extremely close to my vehicle. Once I had to stop to allow an oncoming car to edge past and there was scuffling behind me as the group had to struggle to find space to put feet down. I don't think anyone fell off, but if that did happen the riders have only themselves to blame. I was unable to read their identification numbers, so this dangerous and inconsiderate riding went unreported. Until Wiggle agree to identification numbers on riders' backs, bad riders know they can get away with pretty dreadful behaviour, which lets down the considerate riders - just as nail-spreaders let "good" residents down. Reconciler
  • Score: 3

10:32pm Mon 14 Apr 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Mandy Warhol wrote:
GrahamSimmons wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
rightway wrote:
Mandy Warhol wrote:
saint61 wrote:
I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else.

Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think
As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words.

Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like.

Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses".

Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ?

A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate.

Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph.

In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.
Hi Billy, nice to have you back.
Well spotted.
Thought BTK had given up.
Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it !

It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that.

The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one.

We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs !

And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on.

Have a good week, everyone.
Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation

"Community

9. Registration

When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering.

You can only access the registration areas of the site if:

your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site;
you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site;
you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;
you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user.
If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice.

10. Cancellation or suspension

We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site."

If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.
The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo.

Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you.

They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power.

Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me.

Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated.
What a fantastically arrogant post. The fact that you even still consider other humans to be beings with their own free will is almost unbelievable when you take into account both your own standpoint with which you begin this tirade and your apparent complete lack of self-awareness.
[quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandy Warhol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: I am a frequent visitor to bransgore and enjoy the hospitable public houses. I find this a total and utter disgrace and will not be parting with my monkey into the local economy again.it will go somewhere else. Great attitude from the people of this village.......I don't think[/p][/quote]As a matter of fact, if you were a pupil of mine, I would be insisting you stayed in at playtime to rewrite this piece ! Just a minute - I haven't finished. You seem to have made quite a few errors in a mere 50 words. Bransgore needs a capital "B", and the word "hospitable" is a redundant adjective, begging the question as to what an "INhospitable" public house would be like. Is it possible to "enjoy" a house" ? It needs a little more qualification, something like "enjoy VISITING the public houses". Now we come to the ambiguity. The way you have structured your first two sentences suggests that it is your attendance at the public houses that is "a total and utter disgrace". Why ? Do you feel you spend too much time in pubs ? A capital "I" at the beginning of the third sentence and a full stop at the end of the fourth would be appropriate. Ironically, the use of the word "monkey" instead of "money" does lend a somewhat dreamlike, Surrealistic ambience to the images that pass into one's mind as one progresses through the piece, adding a certain sparkle to what would otherwise be a rather tiresome, pedantic paragraph. In fact, it is pure genius ! Please introduce more errors of this type into your comments, as it will liven up these rather dull corridors of local opinion.[/p][/quote]Hi Billy, nice to have you back.[/p][/quote]Well spotted. Thought BTK had given up.[/p][/quote]Billy The Kid would still be called Billy The Kid, and posting here regularly if it had not been for the cowardly wimps who ganged up on him and bullied Dan Kerins into banning him ! Easy to get the opposition eliminated when the paper has only very limited time and resources to keep order here, and can't be bothered to premoderate. Just a few phone calls to "Desperate Dan" will do it ! It seems all people with something of value to say and an ability to spell get driven off this forum. But you know that. The BTK still have 94 unique email/nickname opportunities left for use on this forum, so either stop bullying and show a bit of friendliness, or spend the next few years playing "Spot The BTK". We quite like the "Mandy Warhol" brand name - it would be a shame to lose that one. We just love Stewart Lee, so watch out for some incisive put-downs ! And lighten up ! Yes, the original Billy ( who sadly died recently in an unfortunate carpet-chewing accident ) took everything far too seriously, but the group approach helps us keep the lid on. Have a good week, everyone.[/p][/quote]Reported on grounds of Terms of Service violation "Community 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments, blogs, Jobs, Homes and Cars sections you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution, save details of adverts or set up email alerts. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. You can only access the registration areas of the site if: your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. 10. Cancellation or suspension We can suspend or cancel this agreement and your ability to use the website and its community forums, reader comments and blogs with immediate effect at any time for any reason, including but not restricted to your serious or repeated breach of these Terms or any conduct in connection with your use of this site that we consider inappropriate or disruptive and which is serious or persistent. We will notify you of such termination at your registered email address and invalidate your access to the site." If you'd like to see less arguments in article comments, you're also advised to report this user for their multiple Terms of Service breaches. You can do this on any of their posts above.[/p][/quote]The fact that someone of your insufferable arrogance and psychopathic nastiness seems to roam this forum with impunity, bullying and intimidating, is no more than a reflection of the inadequate management of this site. Many people have hinted at how distasteful they find your attitude, but only BTK dared to challenge your gargantuan ego. And rather than get into a tussle over it, Dan Kerins took the easy way out and banned BTK. Anything for a quiet life. You have the dubious good fortune of being in favour with the Echo. Breaches of site terms are hardly crimes of the century, if cries at all, are they? They can make up any rules they like as a website is like private property. It isn't law, just their personal preferences. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to instruct users not to share accounts, nicknames, etc. However, if a user was doing that to create deliberate disruption, or to carry out malicious verbal attacks on other users, that would be a different matter. You know full well that BTK has never initiated any attacks on anyone. Any harsh words have always been in retaliation against people such as you and Downfader, who have deliberately set out on every conceivable opportunity to discredit BTK, simply for disagreeing with you. They don't have to be in the slightest bit fair or reasonable. Don't like you - Zap ! Graham Simmons doesn't like you and he's my friend's friend - Zap ! It's sabre-rattling with power. Without you and Downfader intimidating and offending us, we seem to be able to post comments successfully, without getting into personal arguments. I personally chose not to ignore you, which went expressly against Dan Kerins' advice to me. Well, Simmons, are you proud to be one of the great "ignored" ? Despite the numerous bans that you have actively contributed to I can say BTK was never ignored, but very often appreciated.[/p][/quote]What a fantastically arrogant post. The fact that you even still consider other humans to be beings with their own free will is almost unbelievable when you take into account both your own standpoint with which you begin this tirade and your apparent complete lack of self-awareness. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 5

10:38pm Mon 14 Apr 14

DaisyJay says...

I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000.....
I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000..... DaisyJay
  • Score: -4

10:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

DaisyJay wrote:
I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000.....
Only £1.50 per rider, IF they all donated the same amount which isn't likely.
[quote][p][bold]DaisyJay[/bold] wrote: I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000.....[/p][/quote]Only £1.50 per rider, IF they all donated the same amount which isn't likely. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

11:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

BeyondImagination says...

If you can cope with deer and ponies running into the road then a cycle rally a couple of times a year should be no problem. If you can't you ought to consider whether you should still be driving.
If you can cope with deer and ponies running into the road then a cycle rally a couple of times a year should be no problem. If you can't you ought to consider whether you should still be driving. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 6

11:47pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Tallauders says...

There seems a lot of animosity towards the residents of the New Forest on this site.
There has been a lot of anxiety over the Wiggle rides as yes, it does cause a huge amount of disruption to everyone living here and also to other tourists.
I have to say that I personally stood and watched in awe as groups of cyclists riding up to 5 abreast flew over a crossroads nr my house without stopping to look for traffic on the priority road - there were no marshals there either..
I had earlier driven home over the Avon Causeway. It was fairly chaotic but I was gracefully thanked for stopping to allow a great many cyclists over the narrow part with a cheery wave and a thank you - it was their priority so of course I gave way - but singularly unimpressed by cars that were overtaking the cyclists on a very narrow road, and the hooting of the car behind me when I obeyed the road sign. Surely it is better to arrive 5 minutes late in this world rather than 50 years too early in the next?
As a resident of the New Forest I had planned my weekend around this event in order to avoid the worst of it. I do wonder why anyone feels the need to pay a huge amount of money to cycle around the New Forest when it is free 365 days of the year, but each unto their own.
If it isn’t supposed to be a race – why do they feel the need to ride at such speed?? Certainly our local farm shop which was directly on the route saw a mere 5 riders stop to purchase a drink and a banana – hardly a huge boost to the local economy! The start, finish and several miles of the route were not even within the bounds of the New Forest National Park.
I cannot condone the behaviour nr Sopley and doubt that the perpetrator was a local – however the potholes on that road are appalling which in themselves could have been a grave danger to any cyclist - I know this to my cost having shredded a car tyre on my way home from dog training. Surely if the council is going to allow such events both they and the organisers should have made the route suitable for purpose??
I do wonder however who allowed the roads to be spray painted with orange sign markers for this ride and can only wonder how many months it will take to wear off. I do not see how any cyclists could have got lost as there are "W" with arrows painted everywhere on the tarmac - that I am afraid I do consider to be vandalism. Only minimal signage is tolerated within the New Forest and yet Wiggle seem to have littered our roads with orange paint.
As a horse rider I chose to leave my animals in their fields for the weekend.
Most local cyclists alert you to their presence prior to passing you but when endless groups of riders fly past any horse without warning there is always going to be the risk that it will freak out. Horses are a flight animal and live and survive by their ability to go from 0-100 on sheer adrenalin - it is a thought for any cyclist to take with them out onto the roads so that when they next need to pass a ridden horse they could just slow down and let the rider know that they are there.
As with all things in life, a little courtesy goes a long long way - even on here would be nice -
There seems a lot of animosity towards the residents of the New Forest on this site. There has been a lot of anxiety over the Wiggle rides as yes, it does cause a huge amount of disruption to everyone living here and also to other tourists. I have to say that I personally stood and watched in awe as groups of cyclists riding up to 5 abreast flew over a crossroads nr my house without stopping to look for traffic on the priority road - there were no marshals there either.. I had earlier driven home over the Avon Causeway. It was fairly chaotic but I was gracefully thanked for stopping to allow a great many cyclists over the narrow part with a cheery wave and a thank you - it was their priority so of course I gave way - but singularly unimpressed by cars that were overtaking the cyclists on a very narrow road, and the hooting of the car behind me when I obeyed the road sign. Surely it is better to arrive 5 minutes late in this world rather than 50 years too early in the next? As a resident of the New Forest I had planned my weekend around this event in order to avoid the worst of it. I do wonder why anyone feels the need to pay a huge amount of money to cycle around the New Forest when it is free 365 days of the year, but each unto their own. If it isn’t supposed to be a race – why do they feel the need to ride at such speed?? Certainly our local farm shop which was directly on the route saw a mere 5 riders stop to purchase a drink and a banana – hardly a huge boost to the local economy! The start, finish and several miles of the route were not even within the bounds of the New Forest National Park. I cannot condone the behaviour nr Sopley and doubt that the perpetrator was a local – however the potholes on that road are appalling which in themselves could have been a grave danger to any cyclist - I know this to my cost having shredded a car tyre on my way home from dog training. Surely if the council is going to allow such events both they and the organisers should have made the route suitable for purpose?? I do wonder however who allowed the roads to be spray painted with orange sign markers for this ride and can only wonder how many months it will take to wear off. I do not see how any cyclists could have got lost as there are "W" with arrows painted everywhere on the tarmac - that I am afraid I do consider to be vandalism. Only minimal signage is tolerated within the New Forest and yet Wiggle seem to have littered our roads with orange paint. As a horse rider I chose to leave my animals in their fields for the weekend. Most local cyclists alert you to their presence prior to passing you but when endless groups of riders fly past any horse without warning there is always going to be the risk that it will freak out. Horses are a flight animal and live and survive by their ability to go from 0-100 on sheer adrenalin - it is a thought for any cyclist to take with them out onto the roads so that when they next need to pass a ridden horse they could just slow down and let the rider know that they are there. As with all things in life, a little courtesy goes a long long way - even on here would be nice - Tallauders
  • Score: 1

11:50pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

DaisyJay wrote:
I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000.....
The £3000 was from the organisers not the riders, it follows the £22500 that they donated to prostrate cancer last month.
[quote][p][bold]DaisyJay[/bold] wrote: I can't believe that 2000 riders could only raise £3000.....[/p][/quote]The £3000 was from the organisers not the riders, it follows the £22500 that they donated to prostrate cancer last month. Drhysted
  • Score: 5

12:14am Tue 15 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be. Georgethepie
  • Score: -4

12:16am Tue 15 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 12

8:52am Tue 15 Apr 14

WaynePD says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake.

http://1.bp.blogspot
.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH
Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA
k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/
both.bmp
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake. http://1.bp.blogspot .com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/ both.bmp WaynePD
  • Score: 6

8:54am Tue 15 Apr 14

WaynePD says...

It makes me laugh that a lot of the arguments are about it ruining the atmosphere of the forest then they go on to say how hard it is to drive through.
It makes me laugh that a lot of the arguments are about it ruining the atmosphere of the forest then they go on to say how hard it is to drive through. WaynePD
  • Score: 3

9:47am Tue 15 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

WaynePD wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake.

http://1.bp.blogspot

.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH

Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA

k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/

both.bmp
Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads.
[quote][p][bold]WaynePD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake. http://1.bp.blogspot .com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/ both.bmp[/p][/quote]Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads. Torchie1
  • Score: -3

9:59am Tue 15 Apr 14

WaynePD says...

Torchie1 wrote:
WaynePD wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake.

http://1.bp.blogspot


.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH


Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA


k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/


both.bmp
Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads.
Then you wait for it to be safe to overtake, you do not have a divine right to overtake or drive at speed.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WaynePD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake. http://1.bp.blogspot .com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/ both.bmp[/p][/quote]Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads.[/p][/quote]Then you wait for it to be safe to overtake, you do not have a divine right to overtake or drive at speed. WaynePD
  • Score: 4

9:59am Tue 15 Apr 14

WaynePD says...

Torchie1 wrote:
WaynePD wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake.

http://1.bp.blogspot


.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH


Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA


k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/


both.bmp
Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads.
Then you wait for it to be safe to overtake, you do not have a divine right to overtake or drive at speed.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WaynePD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised someone as 'intelligent; doesn't realise that the Highway Code recommends riding 2 abreast to make it easier for motorists to overtake. http://1.bp.blogspot .com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UH Sjy2xPx8I/AAAAAAAAAA k/KD6crsEOeDk/s1600/ both.bmp[/p][/quote]Perhaps you ought to look at the picture again and ask yourself if it's reasonable to suggest it is a realistic impression of the narrow forest roads.[/p][/quote]Then you wait for it to be safe to overtake, you do not have a divine right to overtake or drive at speed. WaynePD
  • Score: 5

10:44am Tue 15 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

12:00pm Tue 15 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them.............. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -2

12:08pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............[/p][/quote]Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

12:23pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)
My word you can't let this go can you?!?!

Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............[/p][/quote]Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)[/p][/quote]My word you can't let this go can you?!?! Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you! camerajuan
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)
My word you can't let this go can you?!?!

Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you!
OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End?
Any good?
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............[/p][/quote]Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)[/p][/quote]My word you can't let this go can you?!?! Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you![/p][/quote]OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End? Any good? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -5

12:46pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)
My word you can't let this go can you?!?!

Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you!
OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End?
Any good?
The micropub? Yeah not bad. 2 pints and I was suitably quenched for my night out.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............[/p][/quote]Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)[/p][/quote]My word you can't let this go can you?!?! Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you![/p][/quote]OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End? Any good?[/p][/quote]The micropub? Yeah not bad. 2 pints and I was suitably quenched for my night out. camerajuan
  • Score: 4

12:56pm Tue 15 Apr 14

RomseyKeith says...

Does anyone else actually think that this may not have been protesters, but actually just some bored kids on their Easter Holidays thinking its just a funny prank?
(Obviously it isn't a funny prank, but to the immature mind it could be).
Does anyone else actually think that this may not have been protesters, but actually just some bored kids on their Easter Holidays thinking its just a funny prank? (Obviously it isn't a funny prank, but to the immature mind it could be). RomseyKeith
  • Score: -3

1:15pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

1:31pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way?
Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger.
Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way? Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger. Reconciler
  • Score: 1

1:34pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Reconciler wrote:
Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way?
Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger.
What a load of bull.
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way? Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger.[/p][/quote]What a load of bull. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

1:49pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance. camerajuan
  • Score: 3

1:50pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

4:46pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............
Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)
My word you can't let this go can you?!?!

Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you!
OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End?
Any good?
The micropub? Yeah not bad. 2 pints and I was suitably quenched for my night out.
That's the one CJ. I would have liked to try it out,but unfortunately I live too far away now.I hope it does well,it sounded like a friendly place to hang out.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]You could always chuck some tin tacks down, that will teach them..............[/p][/quote]Don't bring up tacks on a cycling thread Osp,they all reckon they pay it. ;0)[/p][/quote]My word you can't let this go can you?!?! Build a bridge and stop whining about things that don't affect you![/p][/quote]OK then...did you ever get to that "real ale" bar in the Triangle in the End? Any good?[/p][/quote]The micropub? Yeah not bad. 2 pints and I was suitably quenched for my night out.[/p][/quote]That's the one CJ. I would have liked to try it out,but unfortunately I live too far away now.I hope it does well,it sounded like a friendly place to hang out. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

9:20pm Tue 15 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Reconciler wrote:
Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way?
Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger.
There are 12 million vehicle visits and not one of these vehicle vists ever blocks a road, causes a traffic jam, overtake dangerously or cause any problems for locals or livestock.....

Could Reconciler please let me know where this Nirvana exists because it certainly is nowhere near the New Forest that I know.....

In the one I live in there are traffic jams every weekend, 70 livestock killed by motorists, locals killed / injured, and often difficult to move around the village because of inconsiderate parking

Come on Reconciler... where is this place that you live?
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Beyondimagination: Cycling events disrupt far more than a couple of days a year. Wiggle are the worst, but only one of many. As well as the actual events, the racing riders ride the route to learn how to get round in the least time, so the little lanes are also made dangerous during week-ends and evenings leading up to the big days. There is an event of some sort virtually every week-end. Why do some (not all) cyclists believe that they have paid for the ride and can therefore claim the right to use the whole width of the road and abuse anyone in their way? Congratulations to Wiggle for the improvements this year. It was good to exchange greetings with many friendly and considerate riders. Unfortunately, however, there were still many incidents of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Probably the worst was the group of fast riders who rode straight at a herd of cattle on the road, terrifying the animals (many pregnant) and causing them to stampede. Other road users report being bullied by faster riders trying to overtake - trying both sides of the vehicle - when the vehicle was held up for miles by slower riders, unable to pass because of lack of room on the narrow road to leave the wide safety space that all cyclists claim is necessary. There are still many of these aggressive riders, who cannot be disciplined because they are not identifiable. All this does not mean that long-suffering residents should be taking the dangerous and illegal actions that have been reported - which all sensible people completely condemn. The police should be investigating and prosecuting, just as they should be investigating and prosecuting the cyclists who put cattle and residents in danger.[/p][/quote]There are 12 million vehicle visits and not one of these vehicle vists ever blocks a road, causes a traffic jam, overtake dangerously or cause any problems for locals or livestock..... Could Reconciler please let me know where this Nirvana exists because it certainly is nowhere near the New Forest that I know..... In the one I live in there are traffic jams every weekend, 70 livestock killed by motorists, locals killed / injured, and often difficult to move around the village because of inconsiderate parking Come on Reconciler... where is this place that you live? DanWeston
  • Score: 3

10:34pm Tue 15 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help. southamptonadi
  • Score: 3

5:41am Wed 16 Apr 14

loosehead says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
looking at the gear serious cyclists wear & the cost to them & then seeing those who ride on pavements they're two separate groups.
In Shirley there are no cycling on pavement signs the serious riders don't the spaced out or chavs do I've said to a young women about the signs she was so far gone she was on another planet.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]looking at the gear serious cyclists wear & the cost to them & then seeing those who ride on pavements they're two separate groups. In Shirley there are no cycling on pavement signs the serious riders don't the spaced out or chavs do I've said to a young women about the signs she was so far gone she was on another planet. loosehead
  • Score: 4

6:22am Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL) DanWeston
  • Score: 4

9:05am Wed 16 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

DanWeston wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
Sourced and referenced.

Quit your whining people, motorists cause the damage. Not cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)[/p][/quote]Sourced and referenced. Quit your whining people, motorists cause the damage. Not cyclists. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

10:53am Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

DanWeston wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven.
That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)[/p][/quote]A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven. That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -5

12:06pm Wed 16 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven.
That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.
Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently.

Dunno where you got that "fact" from.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)[/p][/quote]A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven. That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.[/p][/quote]Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently. Dunno where you got that "fact" from. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

3:18pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary
Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary Reconciler
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven.
That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.
Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently.

Dunno where you got that "fact" from.
A "2%" accident involving a cyclist being at fault hitting a cyclist,is still a 100% accident CJ,and doubly so considering most cyclists who illegally ride on pavements,also won't have an adequate policy in place(if any)to cover the cost of any such incident,in the unlikely event of them actually being apprehended,and brought to justice.
Its about justice fairness and equality CJ,that's all.All the attributes that you are constantly campaigning for on behalf of the cycling fraternity, only for a change,let's hear a little bit of it for the pedestrian.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)[/p][/quote]A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven. That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.[/p][/quote]Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently. Dunno where you got that "fact" from.[/p][/quote]A "2%" accident involving a cyclist being at fault hitting a cyclist,is still a 100% accident CJ,and doubly so considering most cyclists who illegally ride on pavements,also won't have an adequate policy in place(if any)to cover the cost of any such incident,in the unlikely event of them actually being apprehended,and brought to justice. Its about justice fairness and equality CJ,that's all.All the attributes that you are constantly campaigning for on behalf of the cycling fraternity, only for a change,let's hear a little bit of it for the pedestrian. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

4:48pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.
Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.
Exactly.
Realty......

98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)
A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven.
That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.
Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently.

Dunno where you got that "fact" from.
A "2%" accident involving a cyclist being at fault hitting a cyclist,is still a 100% accident CJ,and doubly so considering most cyclists who illegally ride on pavements,also won't have an adequate policy in place(if any)to cover the cost of any such incident,in the unlikely event of them actually being apprehended,and brought to justice.
Its about justice fairness and equality CJ,that's all.All the attributes that you are constantly campaigning for on behalf of the cycling fraternity, only for a change,let's hear a little bit of it for the pedestrian.
Sorry,that should read "hitting a pedestrian" in the first sentence, although what I said is also another possible scenario with the amount of cyclists now seen illegally pavement riding.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]Compared to a car, a cyclist isn't likely to cause you serious injuries IF they hit you but a car, whenit hits you, is far more likely to give you a broken bone or worse.[/p][/quote]Hence, the absolute NEED for car insurance and not the NEED for cycle insurance.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]Realty...... 98% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement are due to contact with motor vehicles, and less than 2% by bicycles (TfL)[/p][/quote]A 1% risk is too high for any insurance company nowadays,especially given the amount that has to be paid out if the claim is proven. That's assuming the guilty party is adequately insured,of course.[/p][/quote]Obviously it's not for cyclists. Otherwise cycle insurance would be more expensive, and also advertised more frequently. Dunno where you got that "fact" from.[/p][/quote]A "2%" accident involving a cyclist being at fault hitting a cyclist,is still a 100% accident CJ,and doubly so considering most cyclists who illegally ride on pavements,also won't have an adequate policy in place(if any)to cover the cost of any such incident,in the unlikely event of them actually being apprehended,and brought to justice. Its about justice fairness and equality CJ,that's all.All the attributes that you are constantly campaigning for on behalf of the cycling fraternity, only for a change,let's hear a little bit of it for the pedestrian.[/p][/quote]Sorry,that should read "hitting a pedestrian" in the first sentence, although what I said is also another possible scenario with the amount of cyclists now seen illegally pavement riding. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

5:05pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id
entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

7:15pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id

entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking? DanWeston
  • Score: 2

7:28pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Reconciler wrote:
Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary
Where to start...

1. It is not a few bad motorists, it is the 13 million vehicle journeys each year that clog up Lyndhurst every weekend, and cause a nightmare with bad parking, poor road sense and poor driving.

2. The thread is about a few scum trying to injure people and animals by spreading nails across a road,,,,not about the behaviour of cyclists at all, this is simply a petty, unjustified excuse for the scurrilous behaviour of these vandals who did not care who or that was injured by their antics.

3. You really need to explain how cyclists "terrify cattle" yet thousands of motorists don't... especially given the facts that 70 livestock were killed last year by motorists

4. "Big business taking over the National Park, causing obstruction, delaying locals and "scaring livestock" ... do you include the New Forest Show in this statement?


As I said ..... why not let reality into your world?
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary[/p][/quote]Where to start... 1. It is not a few bad motorists, it is the 13 million vehicle journeys each year that clog up Lyndhurst every weekend, and cause a nightmare with bad parking, poor road sense and poor driving. 2. The thread is about a few scum trying to injure people and animals by spreading nails across a road,,,,not about the behaviour of cyclists at all, this is simply a petty, unjustified excuse for the scurrilous behaviour of these vandals who did not care who or that was injured by their antics. 3. You really need to explain how cyclists "terrify cattle" yet thousands of motorists don't... especially given the facts that 70 livestock were killed last year by motorists 4. "Big business taking over the National Park, causing obstruction, delaying locals and "scaring livestock" ... do you include the New Forest Show in this statement? As I said ..... why not let reality into your world? DanWeston
  • Score: 3

7:39pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id


entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

7:41pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id



entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
I've seen motorists mounting the pavement quite a few times, mostly school kids on 50cc hairdryers but also people in cars as well.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]I've seen motorists mounting the pavement quite a few times, mostly school kids on 50cc hairdryers but also people in cars as well. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

7:46pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id



entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement? DanWeston
  • Score: 2

8:03pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id




entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying!
But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?)
As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced,
unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying! But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?) As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced, unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

8:38pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id





entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying!
But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?)
As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced,

unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.
"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying! But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?) As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced, unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.[/p][/quote]"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

8:57pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id






entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying!
But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?)
As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced,


unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.
"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.
So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying! But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?) As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced, unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.[/p][/quote]"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.[/p][/quote]So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

9:08pm Wed 16 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id







entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying!
But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?)
As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced,



unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.
"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.
So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge?
this is about a act of sabotage by scum but if posters want to turn it into who's in the wrong for riding parking on the pavement here goes.
Cars park half on the pavement & half on double yellow lines which means both parts of the car are breaking the law.1/obstructing the footpath. 2/ parking on double yellow lines.
Cyclists on pavements unless it has a designated cycleway are also breaking the law either car or cyclist are guilty of breaking the law &* putting pedestrians at risk so I'd like to see both prosecuted.
Now let's get back to the scum who tried to maim & injury cyclists riding lawfully on the roads shall we?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying! But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?) As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced, unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.[/p][/quote]"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.[/p][/quote]So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge?[/p][/quote]this is about a act of sabotage by scum but if posters want to turn it into who's in the wrong for riding parking on the pavement here goes. Cars park half on the pavement & half on double yellow lines which means both parts of the car are breaking the law.1/obstructing the footpath. 2/ parking on double yellow lines. Cyclists on pavements unless it has a designated cycleway are also breaking the law either car or cyclist are guilty of breaking the law &* putting pedestrians at risk so I'd like to see both prosecuted. Now let's get back to the scum who tried to maim & injury cyclists riding lawfully on the roads shall we? loosehead
  • Score: 4

9:25pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id








entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements?

If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking.

It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists?

However lets go one step further...

Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?
I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.
SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one.

You are very fortunate.

Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed.

Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?
Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying!
But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?)
As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced,




unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.
"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.
So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge?
this is about a act of sabotage by scum but if posters want to turn it into who's in the wrong for riding parking on the pavement here goes.
Cars park half on the pavement & half on double yellow lines which means both parts of the car are breaking the law.1/obstructing the footpath. 2/ parking on double yellow lines.
Cyclists on pavements unless it has a designated cycleway are also breaking the law either car or cyclist are guilty of breaking the law &* putting pedestrians at risk so I'd like to see both prosecuted.
Now let's get back to the scum who tried to maim & injury cyclists riding lawfully on the roads shall we?
I agree Loosehead,and I've made my views on that perfectly clear on a later thread.
There's no justification for that whatsoever,and the perpetrators could unwittingly now be responsible for the death or serious injury of some innocent individuals,so if they are caught,the punishment should be more in line for something like attempted murder,not just a paltry fine.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]Do the "Pavement Pirates" include the thousands of motorists illegally abusing pavements? If so it raises a real question....They are adults who should know better, they have undergone testing, supposedly have insurance, registration, etc... however this does not seem to have stopped the endemic use of pavements for parking. It hasn't stopped motorists abusing the pavement, so why should it stop cyclists? However lets go one step further... Would you support a zero tolerance on pavement abuse with anyone illegally on the pavement being fined for the offence... including vehicles parking?[/p][/quote]I've never been run over by a parked car,and I've never seen the driver of a motorised vehicle use a pavement instead of the road (and I could count the incidences on the fingers of one hand,even though I'm in my sixties)with impunity,or without fear of prosecution.[/p][/quote]SO you have never (personally) seen a vehicle driving on a pavement, or been injured by one. You are very fortunate. Now look t the inconsiderate ,illegal and dangerous parking from the point of view of someone who is disabled, partially sighted or the parent who has to use the road because the pavement is obstructed. Cycling ion the pavement is unacceptable, so is the obstruction by motor vehicles, now back to the question ..... why not support a zero tolerance campaign for both cyclists and motorists on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Why are you turning this into an argument? Have I said I wouldn't support zero tolerance for the abuse of the pedestrian way?That goes without saying! But this thread has been(in case you hadn't noticed)on the subject of cycling(what other subject is there?) As you rightly say,apart from the illegals,all drivers of motorised vehicles are tested,registered and licenced,of legal age and assumed fit and healthy,but I have never seen one incidence of said drivers,using the pavement for a point to point journey,unlike the untested,unlicenced, unregistered and unidentifiable cyclists,whom I encounter in large numbers on British pavements daily.[/p][/quote]"Large numbers" That's the biggest load of BS I've read so far today.[/p][/quote]So you've got the statistical figures for every incidence of illegal pavement riding readily to hand then have you Ginge?[/p][/quote]this is about a act of sabotage by scum but if posters want to turn it into who's in the wrong for riding parking on the pavement here goes. Cars park half on the pavement & half on double yellow lines which means both parts of the car are breaking the law.1/obstructing the footpath. 2/ parking on double yellow lines. Cyclists on pavements unless it has a designated cycleway are also breaking the law either car or cyclist are guilty of breaking the law &* putting pedestrians at risk so I'd like to see both prosecuted. Now let's get back to the scum who tried to maim & injury cyclists riding lawfully on the roads shall we?[/p][/quote]I agree Loosehead,and I've made my views on that perfectly clear on a later thread. There's no justification for that whatsoever,and the perpetrators could unwittingly now be responsible for the death or serious injury of some innocent individuals,so if they are caught,the punishment should be more in line for something like attempted murder,not just a paltry fine. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

9:25pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id

entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go.
Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability?

I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have.

There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues.

But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law.

Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go. Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability? I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have. There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues. But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law. Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id


entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go.
Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability?

I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have.

There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues.

But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law.

Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it.
Can't disagree with anything you say Adi.(unlike a lot of others I could mention). ;0)
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go. Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability? I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have. There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues. But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law. Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it.[/p][/quote]Can't disagree with anything you say Adi.(unlike a lot of others I could mention). ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -4

9:32pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Reconciler wrote:
Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary
I'm sure we discussed to great lengths after the last event but.
I'm not sure anyone can prove or disprove that any cattle were scared. But

How many official complaints were there from the forestry commission , npa or any workers who toil the land about being abused, weather proved or not.
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary[/p][/quote]I'm sure we discussed to great lengths after the last event but. I'm not sure anyone can prove or disprove that any cattle were scared. But How many official complaints were there from the forestry commission , npa or any workers who toil the land about being abused, weather proved or not. southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Reconciler wrote:
Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary
I'm sure we discussed to great lengths after the last event but.
I'm not sure anyone can prove or disprove that any cattle were scared. But

How many official complaints were there from the forestry commission , npa or any workers who toil the land about being abused, weather proved or not.
Of course the real irony is that there are no reports on the Verderers website, the National Park Authority or the others sites about cyclists scaring cattle....


What we do have is lots of requests for witnesses or information about hit and runs on animals by locals.

The number of animals killed rose again last yeat and 75% were killed by New Forest Residents.

But hey why clamp down on the real issues when you can make up spurious and unsubstantiated claims to divert attention fro the real problem... the locals
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Dear Dan Weston, Where did I say that no car in the New Forest ever causes obstruction? Just because some car drivers behave badly, how does this make it right for several thousands of cyclists to take over narrow lanes for hours on end, abuse those who toil to maintain the National Park for the nation to be able to enjoy its special qualities and culture, and terrify the cattle which created the Park and without which it would quickly cease to exist? For the record, in the bit of the Forest I know best there is very rarely a traffic jam, but this thread is about the behaviour of cyclists, not motorists. The vast majority of Forest residents love to see, and warmly welcome, considerate cyclists who want to appreciate the qualities for which the Forest was recognised as a National Park. We do not like being bullied by cyclists uninterested in these qualities and solely concentrating on using the roads as a race track to be covered in as short a time as possible, and cursing any other road user who happens to be in their way. Unfortunately big business and big money has taken over, causing the Purposes of the Natonal Park to be forgotten, in summary[/p][/quote]I'm sure we discussed to great lengths after the last event but. I'm not sure anyone can prove or disprove that any cattle were scared. But How many official complaints were there from the forestry commission , npa or any workers who toil the land about being abused, weather proved or not.[/p][/quote]Of course the real irony is that there are no reports on the Verderers website, the National Park Authority or the others sites about cyclists scaring cattle.... What we do have is lots of requests for witnesses or information about hit and runs on animals by locals. The number of animals killed rose again last yeat and 75% were killed by New Forest Residents. But hey why clamp down on the real issues when you can make up spurious and unsubstantiated claims to divert attention fro the real problem... the locals DanWeston
  • Score: 4

10:26pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned.
Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.
Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.
Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.
Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.
So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.
I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.
Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id



entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.
I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go.
Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability?

I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have.

There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues.

But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law.

Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it.
Can't disagree with anything you say Adi.(unlike a lot of others I could mention). ;0)
Why thank you, I always try to have a balanced view and encourage discussion without the need for turning nasty.

I love to cycle and drive, I cycle to the same standard that I drive as I was trained to do. Ironically i refuse to jump red lights on my bicycle but do on occasions in my car, I don't know why.

I used to defend cycling but nowadays it's really hard to defend against the image of cyclists which is not pretty. I hate rljers, and pavement riders with a passion and it's increasing, us honest riders get let down, the other day a van followed a cyclist and stayed behind, they got to a red light and the cyclist went straight through. It pains me to think that next time the driver will just pass even if it's unsafe and will endanger the lives of a vulnerable road user just because of that one idiot. I can see both sides,

I find when I'm cycle touring I get a lot of respect but around southampton I have to fight for my live pretty much every time.

I'm hoping my new recumbent trike will change that as it's different.

But thank you and I hope you get your issue sorted, me I would probably resort to standing my ground on the pavement. But is there a reason they do it, eg busy and unsafe junction, short cut or is it just bone idleness
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: Simple. If these people on push bikes wish to use the roads make them pay insurance at least. They are a menace wherever they go, You see them all the time 2,3 abreast not giving a monkeys about anyone so I'm not surprised people are taking matters into their own hands even if the methods can't be condoned. Funny how the cyclist always complains yet much of the time they are victims of their own doing.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists already ARE insured through home and contents insurance, club memberships, memberships to British Cycling or CTC.[/p][/quote]Yes but it's not compulsory and it should be.[/p][/quote]Why? Compared to a car, a cyclist poses NO risk to others, hence bicycle insurance is literally given away.[/p][/quote]So all the cyclists that I have to jump out of the way of when I step out of my garden gate,as they ride illegally past on the pavement everyday,pose no risk or threat to anyone then...right,glad you've cleared that one up then Ginge,I had no idea.[/p][/quote]I can't believe for a minute that any of your cyclists were on the wiggle. But if you have a serious issue discuss it with your local policeman or plastic copper, if they are kids they won't do a lot but Adults should know better, so they might and I hope they do help.[/p][/quote]Agree with you Adi,but that's the whole point that most people who come on her arguing for fairness are trying to make.That its time the grey area of law in which these "pavement pirates" exist needs to be legislated out,with the introduction of proper testing,licensing,id entification and registration,not to mention an insurance review.[/p][/quote]I believe they have discussed his at government level many times, the cost would be massive with hardly any income from it, policing it would take up all the roads policing units time. How far do you go. Do you make my 7 year old take a test, insurance etc even though he's under the age of repsonsability? I good way would be to make ALL school children participate in a bike ability course. And dish our far higher fines and in force the rules and laws we already have. There is no grey area. What grey area are you talking about? It's because the police don't Inforce the current laws, they don't bother at the moment for whatever reasons. I know some forces have been told to ignore pavement riding as long as the cyclists is not causing any issues. But back to it, the whole point is this has nothing to do with the wiggle. They don't use pavements at all in any wiggle event. You can't tar one person with what someone else may or may not have done somewhere else. That's like banning something because a bloke somewhere else broke a law. Personally reconciler has the best and relevant points against the wiggle and I'm sure we've chatted after the last one about it.[/p][/quote]Can't disagree with anything you say Adi.(unlike a lot of others I could mention). ;0)[/p][/quote]Why thank you, I always try to have a balanced view and encourage discussion without the need for turning nasty. I love to cycle and drive, I cycle to the same standard that I drive as I was trained to do. Ironically i refuse to jump red lights on my bicycle but do on occasions in my car, I don't know why. I used to defend cycling but nowadays it's really hard to defend against the image of cyclists which is not pretty. I hate rljers, and pavement riders with a passion and it's increasing, us honest riders get let down, the other day a van followed a cyclist and stayed behind, they got to a red light and the cyclist went straight through. It pains me to think that next time the driver will just pass even if it's unsafe and will endanger the lives of a vulnerable road user just because of that one idiot. I can see both sides, I find when I'm cycle touring I get a lot of respect but around southampton I have to fight for my live pretty much every time. I'm hoping my new recumbent trike will change that as it's different. But thank you and I hope you get your issue sorted, me I would probably resort to standing my ground on the pavement. But is there a reason they do it, eg busy and unsafe junction, short cut or is it just bone idleness southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

10:37pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Oh and mr positive, I hardly join in with those that you don't mention because it does get nasty and very personal at times. But I can see that sometimes they do get a little ganged up upon,

But generally the real cyclist do have valid points but to be heard they have to argue those points and sometimes that comes across in the wrong way.

It's like the bell issue, if a cyclist does not use one they are arragant speeders, endangering people and if they do use it, they are arrargant £)(:£::&: sometimes we can't win.

But I know who your talking about. Lol I dint think any of them will ever get their point across. Me I just gave up
Oh and mr positive, I hardly join in with those that you don't mention because it does get nasty and very personal at times. But I can see that sometimes they do get a little ganged up upon, But generally the real cyclist do have valid points but to be heard they have to argue those points and sometimes that comes across in the wrong way. It's like the bell issue, if a cyclist does not use one they are arragant speeders, endangering people and if they do use it, they are arrargant £)(:£::&: sometimes we can't win. But I know who your talking about. Lol I dint think any of them will ever get their point across. Me I just gave up southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

11:16pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Oh and mr positive, I hardly join in with those that you don't mention because it does get nasty and very personal at times. But I can see that sometimes they do get a little ganged up upon,

But generally the real cyclist do have valid points but to be heard they have to argue those points and sometimes that comes across in the wrong way.

It's like the bell issue, if a cyclist does not use one they are arragant speeders, endangering people and if they do use it, they are arrargant £)(:£::&: sometimes we can't win.

But I know who your talking about. Lol I dint think any of them will ever get their point across. Me I just gave up
Cheers Adi.Nice to hear the voice of reason.
I've tried standing my ground once or fifty times lol,but to be honest most of them look and react as though its me who's in the wrong,so like you,I've sort of given up(probably like everyone else,which is why they get away with it.)
I agree that cycling is dangerous(even without the numptys who throw nails about)and which is why there is the need for cycle paths and the "turning of a blind eye"to pavement riders.Sadly it is is the more arrogant pavement riding light jumping cowboys,who have given a lot of decent cyclists a bad name.That is something maybe the cycling fraternity itself might need to address,in order to get most decent thinking folks back on side again,because there's very few of us who don't,or haven't partaken of the joys of cycling at some stage in our lives.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: Oh and mr positive, I hardly join in with those that you don't mention because it does get nasty and very personal at times. But I can see that sometimes they do get a little ganged up upon, But generally the real cyclist do have valid points but to be heard they have to argue those points and sometimes that comes across in the wrong way. It's like the bell issue, if a cyclist does not use one they are arragant speeders, endangering people and if they do use it, they are arrargant £)(:£::&: sometimes we can't win. But I know who your talking about. Lol I dint think any of them will ever get their point across. Me I just gave up[/p][/quote]Cheers Adi.Nice to hear the voice of reason. I've tried standing my ground once or fifty times lol,but to be honest most of them look and react as though its me who's in the wrong,so like you,I've sort of given up(probably like everyone else,which is why they get away with it.) I agree that cycling is dangerous(even without the numptys who throw nails about)and which is why there is the need for cycle paths and the "turning of a blind eye"to pavement riders.Sadly it is is the more arrogant pavement riding light jumping cowboys,who have given a lot of decent cyclists a bad name.That is something maybe the cycling fraternity itself might need to address,in order to get most decent thinking folks back on side again,because there's very few of us who don't,or haven't partaken of the joys of cycling at some stage in our lives. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

12:08pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.
To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome. Reconciler
  • Score: -6

3:01pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Reconciler wrote:
To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.
"Technical difficulties" Another way of saying, "We don't actually have the proof but we'll make an excuse for not being able to provide any proof to try and make people think it actually happened".
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.[/p][/quote]"Technical difficulties" Another way of saying, "We don't actually have the proof but we'll make an excuse for not being able to provide any proof to try and make people think it actually happened". Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 6

4:26pm Thu 17 Apr 14

loosehead says...

Reconciler wrote:
To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.
so they never stampede with boy racers around?
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.[/p][/quote]so they never stampede with boy racers around? loosehead
  • Score: 5

5:26pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

Be reasonable, Ginger, we are not all IT whizz kids. We'll try to get the video on this thread, but don't know how. As soon as it is available all consultees will have it. Perhaps you could lend us your expertise? Wiggle will soon have it, so ask them. You seem to one of the leaders of "the cyclist can do no wrong" brigade, and don't help efforts to find compromise.
This message may appear twice, because my server disappeared just as I pressed "Post comment" just now.
Be reasonable, Ginger, we are not all IT whizz kids. We'll try to get the video on this thread, but don't know how. As soon as it is available all consultees will have it. Perhaps you could lend us your expertise? Wiggle will soon have it, so ask them. You seem to one of the leaders of "the cyclist can do no wrong" brigade, and don't help efforts to find compromise. This message may appear twice, because my server disappeared just as I pressed "Post comment" just now. Reconciler
  • Score: -6

5:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

kiddynamite says...

Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance!
Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance! kiddynamite
  • Score: -6

7:04pm Thu 17 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance!
What about 13 million vehicle borne visitors?

DO you classify them as "stupid people in cars ruining the ambience?
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance![/p][/quote]What about 13 million vehicle borne visitors? DO you classify them as "stupid people in cars ruining the ambience? DanWeston
  • Score: 4

7:05pm Thu 17 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

loosehead wrote:
Reconciler wrote:
To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.
so they never stampede with boy racers around?
... of course not!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: To those who cast doubt on the cattle stampede at Brockenhurst, a very reliable witness saw it. There may even be a video showing it, which will be made available when technical difficulties have been overcome.[/p][/quote]so they never stampede with boy racers around?[/p][/quote]... of course not! DanWeston
  • Score: 2

10:45pm Thu 17 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance!
Oh sod off!

Seriously people talk the most amount of nonsense about cyclists I have ever seen on here. I'd be surprised if you find a door to get out of the house in the mornings!
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance![/p][/quote]Oh sod off! Seriously people talk the most amount of nonsense about cyclists I have ever seen on here. I'd be surprised if you find a door to get out of the house in the mornings! camerajuan
  • Score: 4

10:58pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

kiddynamite wrote:
Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance!
You mean the ambiance already destroyed by locals in their 8MPG land rovers/range rovers, other local motor vehicles and visiting motor vehicles?
[quote][p][bold]kiddynamite[/bold] wrote: Sad really that our beautiful forest is ruined by these never do any wrong power ranger looky likeys! If you could afford to live in the forest i am sure you too would not want stupid people on bikes ruining the ambiance![/p][/quote]You mean the ambiance already destroyed by locals in their 8MPG land rovers/range rovers, other local motor vehicles and visiting motor vehicles? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

10:59pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Reconciler wrote:
Be reasonable, Ginger, we are not all IT whizz kids. We'll try to get the video on this thread, but don't know how. As soon as it is available all consultees will have it. Perhaps you could lend us your expertise? Wiggle will soon have it, so ask them. You seem to one of the leaders of "the cyclist can do no wrong" brigade, and don't help efforts to find compromise.
This message may appear twice, because my server disappeared just as I pressed "Post comment" just now.
Why would a group that stands largely united need any leaders?
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Be reasonable, Ginger, we are not all IT whizz kids. We'll try to get the video on this thread, but don't know how. As soon as it is available all consultees will have it. Perhaps you could lend us your expertise? Wiggle will soon have it, so ask them. You seem to one of the leaders of "the cyclist can do no wrong" brigade, and don't help efforts to find compromise. This message may appear twice, because my server disappeared just as I pressed "Post comment" just now.[/p][/quote]Why would a group that stands largely united need any leaders? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

12:35pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

Natural leaders always come to the fore! I think you underestimate yourself, Ginger. If you were less bigoted you could do great good. Try seeing the point of view of the reasonable people who are working to find agreement, and ignore the bigots of the "cyclists can do no right" brigade.

Kiddynamite, please stop assuming that all people who live in the Forest are super rich. Yes, there are some, but most of the commoners scrape by, sacrificing a great deal to care and provide for their animals, and without their efforts the nation would not have a Forest to appreciate and enjoy. 4-wheel drives (mostly ancient) are a very necessary tool for the work. And the regular litter-picks, for example, needed to keep the Forest beautiful (and safe for the animals), are organised and carried out by ordinary residents - wealthy and poor alike. Could you put in half a day to help with this work from time to time?
Natural leaders always come to the fore! I think you underestimate yourself, Ginger. If you were less bigoted you could do great good. Try seeing the point of view of the reasonable people who are working to find agreement, and ignore the bigots of the "cyclists can do no right" brigade. Kiddynamite, please stop assuming that all people who live in the Forest are super rich. Yes, there are some, but most of the commoners scrape by, sacrificing a great deal to care and provide for their animals, and without their efforts the nation would not have a Forest to appreciate and enjoy. 4-wheel drives (mostly ancient) are a very necessary tool for the work. And the regular litter-picks, for example, needed to keep the Forest beautiful (and safe for the animals), are organised and carried out by ordinary residents - wealthy and poor alike. Could you put in half a day to help with this work from time to time? Reconciler
  • Score: -2

4:13pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Velleity says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists
Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling.
Are the pedals on your bike petrochemical free? The tyres? The soles on your shoes? Your handlebar grips? Any O rings on your bike? The paint on your bike? The dyes in your clothes? And where did the energy come from to smelt the metals and to machine the parts in your bike? What oil was used in the milling of your bike parts? What did the ship that delivered your bike run on?

Away from your bike: I presume also that you're posting from a PC with no plastic in it. You never wear anything with ANY manmade fibres. You use no electricity (even if it's from windfarms, it's coming down wires insulated with plastic). You don't use any plastic bottles (even if recycled, they start off as oil). The list is endless.

No-one, not even a perfect being such as yourself can claim not to use any petrochemicals in their life.

All that oil that makes your life (and your bike) possible come from somewhere. As long as it's not from anywhere near you, it's all OK. You get your convenience without any consequences.

So, I'm afraid the joke is not on anyone. We just live in the real world rather than a fantasy one where we can avoid oil. Just admit you consume it and I'll believe you're in touch with reality. Then everyone will be happy.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists[/p][/quote]Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling.[/p][/quote]Are the pedals on your bike petrochemical free? The tyres? The soles on your shoes? Your handlebar grips? Any O rings on your bike? The paint on your bike? The dyes in your clothes? And where did the energy come from to smelt the metals and to machine the parts in your bike? What oil was used in the milling of your bike parts? What did the ship that delivered your bike run on? Away from your bike: I presume also that you're posting from a PC with no plastic in it. You never wear anything with ANY manmade fibres. You use no electricity (even if it's from windfarms, it's coming down wires insulated with plastic). You don't use any plastic bottles (even if recycled, they start off as oil). The list is endless. No-one, not even a perfect being such as yourself can claim not to use any petrochemicals in their life. All that oil that makes your life (and your bike) possible come from somewhere. As long as it's not from anywhere near you, it's all OK. You get your convenience without any consequences. So, I'm afraid the joke is not on anyone. We just live in the real world rather than a fantasy one where we can avoid oil. Just admit you consume it and I'll believe you're in touch with reality. Then everyone will be happy. Velleity
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Reconciler wrote:
Natural leaders always come to the fore! I think you underestimate yourself, Ginger. If you were less bigoted you could do great good. Try seeing the point of view of the reasonable people who are working to find agreement, and ignore the bigots of the "cyclists can do no right" brigade.

Kiddynamite, please stop assuming that all people who live in the Forest are super rich. Yes, there are some, but most of the commoners scrape by, sacrificing a great deal to care and provide for their animals, and without their efforts the nation would not have a Forest to appreciate and enjoy. 4-wheel drives (mostly ancient) are a very necessary tool for the work. And the regular litter-picks, for example, needed to keep the Forest beautiful (and safe for the animals), are organised and carried out by ordinary residents - wealthy and poor alike. Could you put in half a day to help with this work from time to time?
I've said time and time again, I KNOW there's a SMALL minority of idiot cyclists, like it's a SMALL minority of DANGEROUS, moronic forest locals who threw nails everywhere(which is what this article's about).
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Natural leaders always come to the fore! I think you underestimate yourself, Ginger. If you were less bigoted you could do great good. Try seeing the point of view of the reasonable people who are working to find agreement, and ignore the bigots of the "cyclists can do no right" brigade. Kiddynamite, please stop assuming that all people who live in the Forest are super rich. Yes, there are some, but most of the commoners scrape by, sacrificing a great deal to care and provide for their animals, and without their efforts the nation would not have a Forest to appreciate and enjoy. 4-wheel drives (mostly ancient) are a very necessary tool for the work. And the regular litter-picks, for example, needed to keep the Forest beautiful (and safe for the animals), are organised and carried out by ordinary residents - wealthy and poor alike. Could you put in half a day to help with this work from time to time?[/p][/quote]I've said time and time again, I KNOW there's a SMALL minority of idiot cyclists, like it's a SMALL minority of DANGEROUS, moronic forest locals who threw nails everywhere(which is what this article's about). Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

4:22pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Velleity wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.
I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists
Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling.
Are the pedals on your bike petrochemical free? The tyres? The soles on your shoes? Your handlebar grips? Any O rings on your bike? The paint on your bike? The dyes in your clothes? And where did the energy come from to smelt the metals and to machine the parts in your bike? What oil was used in the milling of your bike parts? What did the ship that delivered your bike run on?

Away from your bike: I presume also that you're posting from a PC with no plastic in it. You never wear anything with ANY manmade fibres. You use no electricity (even if it's from windfarms, it's coming down wires insulated with plastic). You don't use any plastic bottles (even if recycled, they start off as oil). The list is endless.

No-one, not even a perfect being such as yourself can claim not to use any petrochemicals in their life.

All that oil that makes your life (and your bike) possible come from somewhere. As long as it's not from anywhere near you, it's all OK. You get your convenience without any consequences.

So, I'm afraid the joke is not on anyone. We just live in the real world rather than a fantasy one where we can avoid oil. Just admit you consume it and I'll believe you're in touch with reality. Then everyone will be happy.
Hey, I only mentioned not wearing lycra and using eco friendly lubricants and cleaners on my bike, nothing else, I know you can't totally avoid using oil but you CAN reduce your dependance on oil.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Typical, bigoted, NIMBY behaviour, as I said before, they'd do better to stop any oil/gas companies from buying land in the forest to drill for gas which is a million times more likely to be bad for the forest and ruin the lives of locals.[/p][/quote]I presume you consume neither oil or gas? Must be a bit chilly in your cave? How do you prevent your wheels from squeaking or your chain from seizing? You need to look at the bigger picture before making idiotic suggestions. I suspect you would be one of the first to whine if you could not buy your lycra, etc; attire if the oil/gas companies failed to provide the feedstock for the manufacture of such products. Also, the many medications which save lives including the pain killers you require when side swiped by blind motorists[/p][/quote]Joke's on you because I don't wear lycra and the oil/grease for my bike isn't made from products refined from crude oil, it's made from eco friendly sources, even the bottles are recycled by either refilling them or taking them to a bike shop for recycling.[/p][/quote]Are the pedals on your bike petrochemical free? The tyres? The soles on your shoes? Your handlebar grips? Any O rings on your bike? The paint on your bike? The dyes in your clothes? And where did the energy come from to smelt the metals and to machine the parts in your bike? What oil was used in the milling of your bike parts? What did the ship that delivered your bike run on? Away from your bike: I presume also that you're posting from a PC with no plastic in it. You never wear anything with ANY manmade fibres. You use no electricity (even if it's from windfarms, it's coming down wires insulated with plastic). You don't use any plastic bottles (even if recycled, they start off as oil). The list is endless. No-one, not even a perfect being such as yourself can claim not to use any petrochemicals in their life. All that oil that makes your life (and your bike) possible come from somewhere. As long as it's not from anywhere near you, it's all OK. You get your convenience without any consequences. So, I'm afraid the joke is not on anyone. We just live in the real world rather than a fantasy one where we can avoid oil. Just admit you consume it and I'll believe you're in touch with reality. Then everyone will be happy.[/p][/quote]Hey, I only mentioned not wearing lycra and using eco friendly lubricants and cleaners on my bike, nothing else, I know you can't totally avoid using oil but you CAN reduce your dependance on oil. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

5:40pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

Thanks, Ginger. I see we are both on the side of the moderates. I completely and utterly condemn the saboteurs. The trouble is, what drove them to such horrible behaviour? Being overwhelmed with thousands of cyclists, most of them racing to one degree or another, and being subjected to abuse when "in the way" does tend to result in victims resorting to their own tactics, especially when the organisers made almost no attempt to fulfil their promise to ban anyone disobeying Wiggle and Highway Code of behaviour. And I'm very sorry to have to say this, but in my observation over the last five years, it was a very sizeable minority - if not majority - of the riders who seemed to feel that they had the right to take over the whole route. Some even complained about the animals on the roads, not recognising that these are very much part of the Forest visitors are supposed to enjoy. Certainly no cyclist should frighten cattle - especially pregnant cows. This is a very serious matter indeed as, apart from the animals' suffering, the vet bills can be horrendous.
However, this year there was a noticeable improvement and much friendlier atmosphere, and it was a delight to stand by the road and get lots of cheerful greetings in return for mine. Just keep up the campaign for give and take, and I promise that if I get the least whiff of information about the tin-tack spreaders I will report it immediately.
PS: Glad to see you're eco-friendly.
Thanks, Ginger. I see we are both on the side of the moderates. I completely and utterly condemn the saboteurs. The trouble is, what drove them to such horrible behaviour? Being overwhelmed with thousands of cyclists, most of them racing to one degree or another, and being subjected to abuse when "in the way" does tend to result in victims resorting to their own tactics, especially when the organisers made almost no attempt to fulfil their promise to ban anyone disobeying Wiggle and Highway Code of behaviour. And I'm very sorry to have to say this, but in my observation over the last five years, it was a very sizeable minority - if not majority - of the riders who seemed to feel that they had the right to take over the whole route. Some even complained about the animals on the roads, not recognising that these are very much part of the Forest visitors are supposed to enjoy. Certainly no cyclist should frighten cattle - especially pregnant cows. This is a very serious matter indeed as, apart from the animals' suffering, the vet bills can be horrendous. However, this year there was a noticeable improvement and much friendlier atmosphere, and it was a delight to stand by the road and get lots of cheerful greetings in return for mine. Just keep up the campaign for give and take, and I promise that if I get the least whiff of information about the tin-tack spreaders I will report it immediately. PS: Glad to see you're eco-friendly. Reconciler
  • Score: -3

5:53pm Fri 18 Apr 14

exforester says...

I'm avoiding the Forest this weekend - too many people and cyclists for my liking. However I was there last weekend. Tacks may have been strewn on the road - but who can say it was someone from Bransgore or even the New Forest? Last year protesters were accused of ripping down the signs - when I saw, with my own eyes, donkeys and ponies carrying out this act of treachery.
Fortunately we managed to avid most of the route the cyclists were on, but at Crow, whilst stopped at a junction to check for traffic/animals before turning left, five cyclist decided this little manoeuvre didn't apply to them, they shot up on our left hand side (fortunately we hadn't started moving)and crossed the road.
Later on, there were a group of donkeys in the road, casually crossing diagonally from 'our' side to the other. One was heavily pregnant. Cars coming the other way had slowed considerably. The cyclists in front of us decided this was their chance to squeeze by the pregnant donkey and the slowed car. They missed her by a whisker. Obviously no-one had told them, and their brain cell hadn't calculated that animals have the right of way, and if they're on 'your' side of the road, you wait until the other side is free of traffic before passing the animals, giving them a wide berth. There will be young animals frolicking about soon. If pregnant animals are treated with such thoughtlessness, what hope the young ones?
Even further on, there were cyclists quite a way in front of us. We turned a corner to find an elderly gentleman trying to calm the very spooked horse he was riding.
As I said, we avoided most of the route taken by the cyclists, but the few we met appeared to be pretty arrogant.
I'm avoiding the Forest this weekend - too many people and cyclists for my liking. However I was there last weekend. Tacks may have been strewn on the road - but who can say it was someone from Bransgore or even the New Forest? Last year protesters were accused of ripping down the signs - when I saw, with my own eyes, donkeys and ponies carrying out this act of treachery. Fortunately we managed to avid most of the route the cyclists were on, but at Crow, whilst stopped at a junction to check for traffic/animals before turning left, five cyclist decided this little manoeuvre didn't apply to them, they shot up on our left hand side (fortunately we hadn't started moving)and crossed the road. Later on, there were a group of donkeys in the road, casually crossing diagonally from 'our' side to the other. One was heavily pregnant. Cars coming the other way had slowed considerably. The cyclists in front of us decided this was their chance to squeeze by the pregnant donkey and the slowed car. They missed her by a whisker. Obviously no-one had told them, and their brain cell hadn't calculated that animals have the right of way, and if they're on 'your' side of the road, you wait until the other side is free of traffic before passing the animals, giving them a wide berth. There will be young animals frolicking about soon. If pregnant animals are treated with such thoughtlessness, what hope the young ones? Even further on, there were cyclists quite a way in front of us. We turned a corner to find an elderly gentleman trying to calm the very spooked horse he was riding. As I said, we avoided most of the route taken by the cyclists, but the few we met appeared to be pretty arrogant. exforester
  • Score: -2

6:23pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Munchkinn says...

Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack Munchkinn
  • Score: -2

6:27pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
[quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

6:49pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Get over yourselves,there's people living in poverty,dying of starvation,being bombed,shot and human trafficked in other parts of the world.The why's and wherefores of this argument,matter not one jot by comparison.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Get over yourselves,there's people living in poverty,dying of starvation,being bombed,shot and human trafficked in other parts of the world.The why's and wherefores of this argument,matter not one jot by comparison. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -6

7:04pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Get over yourselves,there's people living in poverty,dying of starvation,being bombed,shot and human trafficked in other parts of the world.The why's and wherefores of this argument,matter not one jot by comparison.
Give over will you? That has nowt to do with the article or Munchkinn's stupid, hyperbole comment.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Get over yourselves,there's people living in poverty,dying of starvation,being bombed,shot and human trafficked in other parts of the world.The why's and wherefores of this argument,matter not one jot by comparison.[/p][/quote]Give over will you? That has nowt to do with the article or Munchkinn's stupid, hyperbole comment. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

7:23pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Munchkinn says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely Munchkinn
  • Score: -2

7:26pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Munchkinn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely
Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track.
[quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely[/p][/quote]Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

8:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

bustard says...

Might just organise the 2015 New Forest World Naked Bike Ride next year......
Might just organise the 2015 New Forest World Naked Bike Ride next year...... bustard
  • Score: 1

8:59pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

You're mistaken about the reason for National Parks, Ginger. Yes, of course the public has a right to use it, but not for anything and everything. I know I have said it before, but by Law the First (and overriding) Purpose is:
"to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park".
It is designated because of these qualities, and to protect it - to conserve it so that the Nation can enjoy its Second Purpose:
"to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities by the public."
Unfortunately racing through it EN MASSE is against both these purposes.
I don't understand why those participating in mass cycling events rely on the fact that a lot of car drivers behave badly (and are frequently prosecuted) to justify their own bad behaviour. EN MASSE cyclists actually disrupt the working life of the Forest more than cars, because heavy car traffic mostly sticks to the main roads and doesn't block the little lanes used by working commoners and their animals to keep the Forest and its special qualities in existence.
Observation of very many events (not just Wiggle) over several years has proved that any form of racing, whether against the clock. in teams, or against fellow riders, discourages understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities. A National Park is not just a big play area, for the public to use for whatever form of recreation it chooses, if that choice harms the cultural heritage, hinders the work of conservation and/or destroys its special qualities - e.g. tranquillity. Comoners are not Nimbies - they are working to conserve the Forest for the Nation.
Would you support identification numbers on riders' backs? Without these the considerable minority of cyclists who bring these events into disrepute and cause so many problems to other road users cannot be identified, and therefore know their inconsiderate behaviour will go unpunished. It is virtually impossible to see handlebar numbers swooping by as fast as the rider can go (which can and does reach over 40+mph downhill). And few riders manage to urinate/defecate sitting on their bikes!
You're mistaken about the reason for National Parks, Ginger. Yes, of course the public has a right to use it, but not for anything and everything. I know I have said it before, but by Law the First (and overriding) Purpose is: "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park". It is designated because of these qualities, and to protect it - to conserve it so that the Nation can enjoy its Second Purpose: "to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities by the public." Unfortunately racing through it EN MASSE is against both these purposes. I don't understand why those participating in mass cycling events rely on the fact that a lot of car drivers behave badly (and are frequently prosecuted) to justify their own bad behaviour. EN MASSE cyclists actually disrupt the working life of the Forest more than cars, because heavy car traffic mostly sticks to the main roads and doesn't block the little lanes used by working commoners and their animals to keep the Forest and its special qualities in existence. Observation of very many events (not just Wiggle) over several years has proved that any form of racing, whether against the clock. in teams, or against fellow riders, discourages understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities. A National Park is not just a big play area, for the public to use for whatever form of recreation it chooses, if that choice harms the cultural heritage, hinders the work of conservation and/or destroys its special qualities - e.g. tranquillity. Comoners are not Nimbies - they are working to conserve the Forest for the Nation. Would you support identification numbers on riders' backs? Without these the considerable minority of cyclists who bring these events into disrepute and cause so many problems to other road users cannot be identified, and therefore know their inconsiderate behaviour will go unpunished. It is virtually impossible to see handlebar numbers swooping by as fast as the rider can go (which can and does reach over 40+mph downhill). And few riders manage to urinate/defecate sitting on their bikes! Reconciler
  • Score: -2

9:50pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Munchkinn says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely
Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track.
If they're not 'racing' then why the resistance to removing the timing? Time trials are against the law, fact. If not racing others then they're racing themselves (to improve their personal bests), 'racing' does not necessarily mean they have to be breaking the speed limit. Stop trying to justify it with arguments about car drivers, this isn't about them. Also why the resistance to have identifiable numbers on their backs? If they were behaving appropriately then there would be no fear of people reporting them.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely[/p][/quote]Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track.[/p][/quote]If they're not 'racing' then why the resistance to removing the timing? Time trials are against the law, fact. If not racing others then they're racing themselves (to improve their personal bests), 'racing' does not necessarily mean they have to be breaking the speed limit. Stop trying to justify it with arguments about car drivers, this isn't about them. Also why the resistance to have identifiable numbers on their backs? If they were behaving appropriately then there would be no fear of people reporting them. Munchkinn
  • Score: -2

11:04pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Munchkinn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Munchkinn wrote:
Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack
National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.
Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely
Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track.
If they're not 'racing' then why the resistance to removing the timing? Time trials are against the law, fact. If not racing others then they're racing themselves (to improve their personal bests), 'racing' does not necessarily mean they have to be breaking the speed limit. Stop trying to justify it with arguments about car drivers, this isn't about them. Also why the resistance to have identifiable numbers on their backs? If they were behaving appropriately then there would be no fear of people reporting them.
Timings are used by organisers so they know if they need to give riders more or less time, the rider's don't get told their times, they have to find them for themselves but have to wait days before they can do so, as for the numbers on their backs, many will probably, like myself, have a bag on their back, therefore making it pointless to put numbers on their backs, plus which, there are already highly visible numbers atached to their bikes before setting off and the VAST majority ARE well behaved, it's just the minority that is behaving badly.
[quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Munchkinn[/bold] wrote: Given they took over £135,000, to give only £3000 is hardly even a token gesture, not even 2.5%! And for the record, commoners would not be the ones spreading nails, because there would be far too much risk to the forest animals. I wish the en-masse cyclists would just go away and realise the forest is a working forest not a bloody racetrack[/p][/quote]National park, means the public have every right to use it, also, tell the motorists who speed through at more than the speed limit, killing livestock, that it's not a bloody race track first, they cause FAR more danger than cyclists do.[/p][/quote]Motorists speeding through it is another issue entirely[/p][/quote]Why? You're accusing people of using the forest as a race track when most cyclists would struggle to reach 30mph even thought it's actually MOTORISTS treating it like a race track.[/p][/quote]If they're not 'racing' then why the resistance to removing the timing? Time trials are against the law, fact. If not racing others then they're racing themselves (to improve their personal bests), 'racing' does not necessarily mean they have to be breaking the speed limit. Stop trying to justify it with arguments about car drivers, this isn't about them. Also why the resistance to have identifiable numbers on their backs? If they were behaving appropriately then there would be no fear of people reporting them.[/p][/quote]Timings are used by organisers so they know if they need to give riders more or less time, the rider's don't get told their times, they have to find them for themselves but have to wait days before they can do so, as for the numbers on their backs, many will probably, like myself, have a bag on their back, therefore making it pointless to put numbers on their backs, plus which, there are already highly visible numbers atached to their bikes before setting off and the VAST majority ARE well behaved, it's just the minority that is behaving badly. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

11:43pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Reconciler wrote:
You're mistaken about the reason for National Parks, Ginger. Yes, of course the public has a right to use it, but not for anything and everything. I know I have said it before, but by Law the First (and overriding) Purpose is:
"to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park".
It is designated because of these qualities, and to prote