CBFalconer said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I
>> don't give two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't
>> affect me one bit (I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two
>> hoots about is the contrast between your demands that other people
>> should observe netiquette conventions and your own special
>> pleading that netiquette conventions do not apply to you. It's
>> hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason, enforce the
>> conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are in no
>> position to demand such enforcement from others.
>
> So, according to your lights, if we write a letter to the editor
> (of some journal, newspaper, etc.) and the editor edits that before
> publication (without checking with the author) we are still
> responsible for that altered content? Isn't this a reasonable
> interpretation?

It's not a great analogy (because a letter to a newspaper typically appears
only in that newspaper and therefore is read only by readers of that
newspaper, whereas a Usenet article will be transmitted to many servers,
most of which do not share your server's "editorial policy"), but let's
run with it for now, and let us assume that the editor's modifications are
in some way "bad". For example, we might imagine that the editor in'sert's
a grocer's apo'strophe before every 's in your mi's'sive.

The first time you write a letter to a newspaper and discover that it has
been detrimentally edited, you certainly have the right to be surprised
and annoyed by it. But if you write a great many letters to the editor,
and every single one is detrimentally edited, then that isn't really
enough - but you do have some options:

(1) take it up with the editor;
(2) write to some other newspaper instead;
(3) stop writing letters altogether;
(4) continue as you are doing.

(1) and (2) both make sense. It would be unfair on you to recommend (3).
But (4) implies an acceptance of an editorial policy that violates basic
rules of punctuation, in which case it would be somewhat hypocritical to
start complaining about people who, say, keep inserting wayward, commas,
in, their, letters.

In Usenet terms, you can:

(1) complain to your ISP;
(2) use a different ISP;
(3) stop using Usenet;
(4) ignore the problem.

(1) is a reasonable course. So is (2). Nobody is suggesting (3). (4) is
what you are doing at the moment. This, too, is a not unreasonable course,
but it does mean that every single article you post breaches netiquette
conventions. Whilst this is perfectly understandable in your situation, it
significantly weakens your justification for criticising other people's
netiquette breaches.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> CBFalconer said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I
>>> don't give two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't
>>> affect me one bit (I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two
>>> hoots about is the contrast between your demands that other people
>>> should observe netiquette conventions and your own special
>>> pleading that netiquette conventions do not apply to you. It's
>>> hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason, enforce the
>>> conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are in no
>>> position to demand such enforcement from others.
>>
>> So, according to your lights, if we write a letter to the editor
>> (of some journal, newspaper, etc.) and the editor edits that before
>> publication (without checking with the author) we are still
>> responsible for that altered content? Isn't this a reasonable
>> interpretation?
>
.... snip ...
>
> In Usenet terms, you can:
>
> (1) complain to your ISP;
> (2) use a different ISP;
> (3) stop using Usenet;
> (4) ignore the problem.
>
> (1) is a reasonable course. So is (2). Nobody is suggesting (3).
> (4) is what you are doing at the moment. This, too, is a not
> unreasonable course, but it does mean that every single article
> you post breaches netiquette conventions. Whilst this is
> perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
> weakens your justification for criticising other people's
> netiquette breaches.

I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
requirement.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>> Whilst this is
>> perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>> weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>> netiquette breaches.
>
> I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
> so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
> requirement.

So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
to snip signatures.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> CBFalconer said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Whilst this is
>>> perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>> weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>> netiquette breaches.
>>
>> I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because
>> the so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>> requirement.
>
> So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the
> failure to snip signatures.

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <471E6DC4.D4ED34AB@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@maineline.net> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> CBFalconer said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Whilst this is
>>>> perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>>> weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>>> netiquette breaches.
>>>
>>> I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because
>>> the so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>>> requirement.
>>
>> So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the
>> failure to snip signatures.
>
>And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
>request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
><whatever>".

In CLC-speak, "Please" is a demand.
I think this is pretty well understood.

(To the extent that anyone can make a demand in the online-world...)

CBFalconer said:

<snip>

> And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
> request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
> <whatever>".

Fine. Please do fix your sig block to conform to netiquette conventions or,
failing that, please don't advise others about conforming to netiquette
conventions.

Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
you yourself won't do?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:56:55 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>Mark McIntyre said:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:51:49 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
>> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible
>>>for yours.
>>
>> To the extent you have any control. Don't pretend you don't
>> understand the point.
>
>I understand the point full well. Chuck can choose whether or not to post
>articles through a broken news service. He chooses to do so. He could
>choose not to do so. Nobody is holding him at gunpoint and forcing him.

AFAIK you have no actual knowledge the reasons for Chuck's adherence
to this server. Meanwhile I seem to recall you have some 'dead' pages
on the internet somewhere which are now potentially misleading - why
haven't you taken them down? I can't see any reason why you've failed
to do this. Hypocritical is a word that some might use, but I'm more
prepared to believe there are good reasons.
..
>> Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. Would you break a 12-month
>> contract?
>
>No, I'd find a different news service.

Even if it cost you several hundred quid?

>> What if it was tied to a deal for cheap webhosting?
>
>I do my own webhosting. Kind of hard to beat free.

I'll just point out here that you have deliberately ignored the
question - presumably because you have no answer.

>> What if your ISP blocked port 119 except for this particular service?
>
>In that case I'd find a different ISP.

And lost your email / webhost / 12 months contract / tied voip deal ?

Richard, you frequently tell JN not to keep digging - why not take
your own advice?

>> That argument is worthy only of the Daily Mail.
>
>Please stick to facts rather than opinions.

Sorry, but I can't if if you write lengthy fact-free
self-justifications.

>You can *ask*... but it is hypocritical to ask others not to drive too
>quickly if you drive too quickly, and it is hypocritical to ask other
>people not to steal if you yourself steal.

I can't decide whether this is the comment of a sanctimonious prig or
a hypocrite. I absolutely do not believe that you yourself have
*never* committed any minor crime which you disapprove of in the
absolute. We all do it, even the most saintly of us,

>> or from sitting on a jury?
>
>Yes, it does mean precisely that.

False.

>If you have recently (last ten years) been imprisoned

But thats the point rather isn't it? We all commit minor offenses - be
it jaywalking, swearing in public, driving at 1mph over the limit,
peeing in the swimming baths, using office postit notes, cycling on
the pavement, whatever. None of this renders you ineligible in law
from sitting on a jury - until and unless you are found guilty of an
actual offense..
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:43:13 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
>the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
>you yourself won't do?

Talk about sanctimonious prats.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:22:30 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>CBFalconer said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Whilst this is
>>> perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>> weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>> netiquette breaches.
>>
>> I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
>> so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>> requirement.
>
>So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
>to snip signatures.

if this is such a HUGE deal to you that you feel it necessary to write
thousands of lines of justification for your sanctimoniousness, why
not just killfile Chuck?

After all, *you* don't need his advice on C any more than you need it
on usenet ettiquette.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Mark McIntyre said:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:56:55 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Mark McIntyre said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:51:49 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
>>> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible
>>>>for yours.
>>>
>>> To the extent you have any control. Don't pretend you don't
>>> understand the point.
>>
>>I understand the point full well. Chuck can choose whether or not to post
>>articles through a broken news service. He chooses to do so. He could
>>choose not to do so. Nobody is holding him at gunpoint and forcing him.
>
> AFAIK you have no actual knowledge the reasons for Chuck's adherence
> to this server. Meanwhile I seem to recall you have some 'dead' pages
> on the internet somewhere which are now potentially misleading - why
> haven't you taken them down?

Because it would be a criminal offence to hack into the server.

> I can't see any reason why you've failed to do this.

I can.

> Hypocritical is a word that some might use, but I'm more
> prepared to believe there are good reasons.

In this case there are good reasons. I do not, however, claim to be free of
hypocrisy. To do so would be hypocritical.

>>> Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. Would you break a 12-month
>>> contract?
>>
>>No, I'd find a different news service.
>
> Even if it cost you several hundred quid?

It does. But we know that cheaper services exist that nevertheless do not
corrupt the messages sent through them.


>>> What if it was tied to a deal for cheap webhosting?
>>
>>I do my own webhosting. Kind of hard to beat free.
>
> I'll just point out here that you have deliberately ignored the
> question - presumably because you have no answer.

On the contrary, you asked me what I'd do, and I answered the question you
asked. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

>
>>> What if your ISP blocked port 119 except for this particular service?
>>
>>In that case I'd find a different ISP.
>
> And lost your email / webhost / 12 months contract / tied voip deal ?

Sure, why not? It's a lousy ISP anyway (see above), so why would I want to
continue in a business relationship with it?

> Richard, you frequently tell JN not to keep digging - why not take
> your own advice?

Mark, I have never told JN not to keep digging, at least not according to
Google Groups, which is the closest thing we have to an archive nowadays.


>>> That argument is worthy only of the Daily Mail.
>>
>>Please stick to facts rather than opinions.
>
> Sorry, but I can't if if you write lengthy fact-free
> self-justifications.

I can parse this, but I don't see in it any relevance to the foregoing
discussion.

>>You can *ask*... but it is hypocritical to ask others not to drive too
>>quickly if you drive too quickly, and it is hypocritical to ask other
>>people not to steal if you yourself steal.
>
> I can't decide whether this is the comment of a sanctimonious prig or
> a hypocrite. I absolutely do not believe that you yourself have
> *never* committed any minor crime which you disapprove of in the
> absolute. We all do it, even the most saintly of us,

I don't consider dangerous driving and theft (the examples you gave) to be
minor crimes.

>>> or from sitting on a jury?
>>
>>Yes, it does mean precisely that.
>
> False.

So you're saying the Juries Act is wrong?

>
>>If you have recently (last ten years) been imprisoned
>
> But thats the point rather isn't it? We all commit minor offenses - be
> it jaywalking,

Not an offence in the UK.

> swearing in public,

I don't do this.

> driving at 1mph over the limit,

I don't do this, either. (Yes, I have driven over the speed limit in the
past, and I was appropriately punished by the judiciary. I have not done
so since that occasion.)

> peeing in the swimming baths,

Speak for yourself.

> using office postit notes,

For their proper purpose, yes. That's what they're there for. For private
use? No - why bother? I have a notebook.

> cycling on the pavement, whatever.

Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

Clearly, you think you have a strong argument, as is so often the case when
you choose to sneer at me, but (as is, again, so often the case) I'm at a
loss to understand /why/ you think you have a strong argument. I don't see
it myself.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Mark McIntyre said:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:43:13 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
>>the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
>>you yourself won't do?
>
> Talk about sanctimonious prats.

I'm sorry, Mark, but I think it would be a really bad idea for me to start
talking about some of the sanctimonious prats I see around Usenet. It
might be hurtful to them, and in any case it would be off-topic. And it
would take too long. And it wouldn't even be fun. Mind you, nor is going
on about this stupid sig block thing.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
....
>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
>if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
>permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
>irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)

But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
different in the UK?
[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

In message <ffrdu2$nd6$1@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
<gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> writes
>In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
>Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>...
>>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
>>if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
>>permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
>>irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.
>
>(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
>for me)
>
>But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
>thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
>complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
>over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
>different in the UK?
>
>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
>your wheels.

What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a
>>bicycle, but if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement
>>except where it is permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from
>>first-hand experience how irritating and indeed dangerous
>>pavement-using cyclists can be.
>
> (This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
> for me)
>
> But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
> thing?

Er, because it's meant for pedestrians?

> I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
> complicated than "road".

We do. Pavement means footpath.

> In any case, we cycle on the road all the
> time over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it
> really different in the UK?
>
>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
> your wheels.

IIRC, most of Europe has a small "bicycle lane" between the footpath and
the road proper, which is the "proper" place to cycle.

In article <LFpUCbEM7TIHFw2A@tqvideo.co.uk>,
Tony Quinn <tony@tqvideo.co.uk> wrote:
....
>>But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
>>thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
>>complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
>>over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
>>different in the UK?
>>
>>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
>>your wheels.
>
>What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk

I see. Still, I'm a little surprised. While I personally don't think
riding on the sidewalk is a good idea, I would say that it is believed
by many that it is safer (particularly for children and other infirmed
types) and it is generally not discouraged.

I know of exactly one neighborhood (in the US) where they have posted
signs forbidding riding on the sidewalk. Two comments regarding this
neightborhood:
1) The existence of these signs "sticks out", since it is rare.
2) Because of the roads and traffic, this is one neighborhood
where it would actually be useful/desirable to be on the
sidewalk (which is, of course, why they forbid it).

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Mark McIntyre said:
>> cycling on the pavement, whatever.
>
> Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
> if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
> permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
> irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
facilities. I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm
not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines. I
particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I cycle on one particular pavement which I can't avoid because it's on a
short, quiet route to university and getting off and pushing my bike for
20m kills the momentum which I have fought hard to build up. This route
is even marked on the official London cycle map! (In both cases, I give
way to pedestrians.) A friend of mine was once told in a nudge-nudge way
by a policeman to cycle on the pavement round a particular junction in
Glasgow because it was safer for both cars and cyclists.

Cycling through red lights is safer:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1695668.ece

Cycling facilities are inadequate:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.c...y-of-the-month
(I particularly like September 2007)

Philip Potter said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> I know from first-hand experience
>> how irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.
>
> A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
> cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
> facilities.

As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.

> I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm

....risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

> not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
> aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
> cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.

Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
law, find another means of transportation.

> I
> particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
> to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Philip Potter said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> I know from first-hand experience
>>> how irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.
>> A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
>> cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
>> facilities.
>
> As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.
>
>> I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm
>
> ...risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
> risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
> you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
> down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

Richard, your argument is let down by your tacet assumptions. I don't go
through /every/ red light, and indeed if there is traffic driving across
my lane I won't cross.

>> not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
>> aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
>> cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.
>
> Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
> people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
> law, find another means of transportation.

So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The roads
are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle paths
are too daft.

>> I
>> particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
>> to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.
>
> I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
> to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
> to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
> risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

Yes, I agree with you here.

(Incedentally, when I was small my mum would /only/ allow me to cycle on
the pavement...)

Philip Potter wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Philip Potter said:

<snip>

>>> not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
>>> aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
>>> cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.
>>
>> Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk
>> other people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without
>> breaking the law, find another means of transportation.
>
> So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The
> roads are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle
> paths are too daft.

This is indeed the case here too. And it's really frustrating because
I'm a big fan of cycling. Not to mention it's benefits to health and
the environment.

Unfortunately money and politics rule.

<snip>

Philip Potter said:

<snip>

> Richard, your argument is let down by your tacet assumptions. I don't go
> through /every/ red light, and indeed if there is traffic driving across
> my lane I won't cross.

Erm, in my original draft, I did have something like "...although
presumably you take care to avoid this..." - but your reply prompted me to
re-read my article, and indeed that phrase appears to have hit the
cutting-room floor. In fact, my whole reply reads far more severely than I
intended, and I apologise to you for that.

<snip>

> So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The roads
> are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle paths
> are too daft.

Yes - at least until the oil runs out, anyway. It's still just about
possible for some children to cycle to school safely, but even that is
becoming too risky in places.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ffs324$s92$1@news.xmission.com...
> In article <LFpUCbEM7TIHFw2A@tqvideo.co.uk>,
> Tony Quinn <tony@tqvideo.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
>>>But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
>>>thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
>>>complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
>>>over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
>>>different in the UK?
>>>
>>>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
>>>your wheels.
>>
>>What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk
>
> I see. Still, I'm a little surprised. While I personally don't think
> riding on the sidewalk is a good idea, I would say that it is believed
> by many that it is safer (particularly for children and other infirmed
> types) and it is generally not discouraged.
here in Germany children up to a certain age (which escapes me right now)
are required to use their bikes on the pavement/sildwalk (i.e not allowed on
the street), up to a certain (higher) age they are still allowed to do this
and as of that age it's strictly forbidden, except if stated otherwise by
some traffic sign.
You'd get a ticket for riding a bike in a pedestrian area (if the police
get's you ;-))

Bye, Jojo

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
[...]
> In Usenet terms, you can:
>
> (1) complain to your ISP;
> (2) use a different ISP;
> (3) stop using Usenet;
> (4) ignore the problem.
>
> (1) is a reasonable course. So is (2). Nobody is suggesting (3). (4) is
> what you are doing at the moment. This, too, is a not unreasonable course,
> but it does mean that every single article you post breaches netiquette
> conventions. Whilst this is perfectly understandable in your situation, it
> significantly weakens your justification for criticising other people's
> netiquette breaches.

Richard, are you sure he hasn't complained to his Usenet provider?
(It's not really an ISP, since it presumably doesn't provide his
Internet access.)

Chuck: If you haven't complained to your Usenet provider, please do
so. Mention that their interface is causing problems for others, not
just for you, and is likely to discourage others from using their
services. They can put all the advertisements they like in the header
lines.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

> Richard, are you sure [Chuck] hasn't complained to his Usenet provider?

Nope. But I hope he has done so or will do so.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999