Nuxx:533aca49-5e45-4bfa-abe7-b1f86751ab29@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <533aca49-5e45-4bfa-abe7-b1f86751ab29@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:20:07 -0800 (PST) References: <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>    Lines: 32 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203938408 460 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2008 11:20:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2835 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641715

On Feb 23, 11:41 pm, Rob Morley  wrote: > In article , Tom Crispin > kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says... > > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:49:12 -0000, Rob Morley  > > wrote: > > > >> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including > > >> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby. > > > >> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy > > >> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no > > >> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing > > >> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the > > >> road. > > > >Pavements aren't for cycling - if he was that bothered he could have > > >pushed the bike. > > > The fine would almost certainly be overturned on appeal or by judicial > > review. Home office advice clearly states that the FPN is not > > intended for responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use > > the footway out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other > > pavement users. > > Shh, don't confuse the issue - Nuxx is still struggling with the simple > stuff.

It's a shame that you managed to answer the original points, only to descend subsequently into trolling. Are you somehow required to maintain a trolling : non-trolling ratio of at least 5 : 1? Do you think you could do the trolling on another thread?