# Pedestrian put-downs



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

Cycling on the pavement between some traffic lights tonight, for like about 5 metres, a woman with a small child apologised for getting in my way, then spoke out loud after me... 'you shouldn't be on the pavement anyway'.

I used to suffer this sort of thing in silence, but this time I had a stroke of inspiration and shouted 'Have you paid your TV licence then?'.

I could tell by the 2 seconds of silence and the confused, stifled abuse she shouted after me that she *hadn't* actually paid her TV licence and I had the moral upper ground.

Statistically I was lucky, but does anyone know of any similar crimes an average pedestrian can be accused of?


----------



## Danny (8 Oct 2007)

The lady with the child was right, you shouldn't have been on the pavement.


----------



## gbb (8 Oct 2007)

Cant back you up on this one Arbitrary ...you shoud have apologised....sincerely


----------



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

Ok, I'm sorry.

To tell the truth, I might not have actually been riding the bike that much. I might have been straddling it with a lot of foot - pavement contact


----------



## ChrisW (8 Oct 2007)

Oh dear Arbitrary...pavement cycling and wait until Bent Mikey sees this, then you're in trouble!


----------



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

Gawd... I'm not even sure if I was even being propelled by the upward motion of the bike. I might even have been walking it. It's all very vague now.

Ok. If I had injured one or the other whilst walking the bike, and they remonstrated, what sort of crimes could I have accused *them* of?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> Gawd... I'm not even sure if I was even being propelled by the upward motion of the bike. I might even have been walking it. It's all very vague now.



Were you backpedalling too, like you are now?


----------



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

If I had been standing still, without a bicycle, in the middle of the traffic light complex, and my knee was jutting out, and they accidentally walked into it, and had a go at me; what sort of crimes could I accuse them of to make them feel bad?

God, this is tough. Thought we were all friends here


----------



## yenrod (8 Oct 2007)

I had a happening one sat. a week orso back...

Some I know from visits to bike shop came along side me whilst I was riding up a hill in their car and said 'can't you go any faster your only doing 20mph...' we laughed and he acceleratored..no worries. 

Actually called him a cheeky %^£$%&^$& etc... 

Then further down the road, well after seeing the person I knew, some jerk; a couple of lads as they went past the front seat passenger scared me quite alot (shouted out the window and they turned my way into small side roads the way I was going..the lad who done it was a real fat lad !

I could of tried to get even but I thought whats the use with such wastes of space ! One day he'll get his return... 



Abitrary said:


> Cycling on the pavement between some traffic lights tonight, for like about 5 metres, a woman with a small child apologised for getting in my way, then spoke out loud after me... 'you shouldn't be on the pavement anyway'.
> 
> I used to suffer this sort of thing in silence, but this time I had a stroke of inspiration and shouted 'Have you paid your TV licence then?'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smokin Joe (8 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> If I had been standing still, without a bicycle, in the middle of the traffic light complex, and my knee was jutting out, and they accidentally walked into it, and had a go at me; what sort of crimes could I accuse them of to make them feel bad?
> 
> God, this is tough. Thought we were all friends here


You'll get know sympathy from me, jutting your knee out in the middle of a traffic light complex you dangerous loon. People like you should be locked up. !


----------



## cyclebum (8 Oct 2007)

yenrod said:


> I
> Then further down the road, well after seeing the person I knew, some jerk; a couple of lads as they went past the front seat passenger scared me quite alot (shouted out the window and they turned my way into small side roads the way I was going..the lad who done it was a real fat lad !



I have had similar on a couple of occasions, 1st was a van that passed and the passenger sprayed me with water saying 'that'll cool you down', the other again a van, the passenger actually opened his door as they passed me then roared with laughter at my startled response.


----------



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

Smokin Joe said:


> You'll get know sympathy from me, jutting your knee out in the middle of a traffic light complex you dangerous loon. People like you should be locked up. !



**** you. I was actually on my bike.

We need dutch law in this country that dictates that bike riders come first...

Then pedestrians...

Then motor vehicles


----------



## Abitrary (8 Oct 2007)

That's the only way to discourage people off the pavement onto bikes


----------



## BentMikey (9 Oct 2007)

ChrisW said:


> Oh dear Arbitrary...pavement cycling and wait until Bent Mikey sees this, then you're in trouble!



LOL, I don't actually see anything wrong with pavement cycling. Sure, it's illegal, so I rarely do it, but why is it taken so seriously here in the UK? My feeling would be that it's because people who do ride regularly on the pavement often exhibit no care or concern towards others, and that doesn't seem to be the case in the Netherlands, for example.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Oct 2007)

Oh, and quality comeback!!!


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> Gawd... I'm not even sure if I was even being propelled by the upward motion of the bike. I might even have been walking it. It's all very vague now.
> 
> Ok. If I had injured one or the other whilst walking the bike, and they remonstrated, what sort of crimes could I have accused *them* of?



Yes, quite correct - no-one's yet come up with a definite answer as to what the definition of cycling is as opposed to walking. You could have been sitting on your bike propelling it with your feet touching the ground, which would have been technically walking. In my book if you're only doing the speed of a ped, you are one.


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> **** you. I was actually on my bike.
> 
> We need dutch law in this country that dictates that bike riders come first...
> 
> ...



no, the order should be thus:
1) MTBs
2) Roadies
3) Cars and vans
4) Lorries
5) Any other vehicle
6) Peds
7) Buses
i.e. if a MTB has an accident with a roadie, it's the roadie's fault. And if a bus has an accident with _anybody_, it's his fault.  And if a ped wanders out into the road in somebody's way, then it's his fault, unless it's a bus.


----------



## Arch (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes, quite correct - no-one's yet come up with a definite answer as to what the definition of cycling is as opposed to walking. You could have been sitting on your bike propelling it with your feet touching the ground, which would have been technically walking. In my book if you're only doing the speed of a ped, you are one.



Ah, the great book of bonj....

I think bonj, we've often come up with definitions for you, you just refuse to accept them. My view would be, if you are straddling your bike, and propelling it along, whether by the pedals or your feet on the ground, you're cycling. If you're off the bike, and pushing it along, you're walking.
I know, you're actually taking up more space that way, but I think that is the definition most people on the street would give...

If Arbitrary had been pushing his bike, from one side, and been remonstrated with, he'd have some comeback. But if he's sitting on, or astride it, he's on shakey ground. And if he was actually riding it, propelling it by the pedals, then he's got no leg to stand on at all...


----------



## BentMikey (9 Oct 2007)

Ah, the old "leg over" definition. LOLOLOL!


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Ah, the great book of bonj....
> 
> I think bonj, we've often come up with definitions for you, you just refuse to accept them. My view would be, *if you are straddling your bike*, and propelling it along, whether by the pedals or your feet on the ground, *you're cycling.* If you're off the bike, and pushing it along, you're walking.
> I know, you're actually taking up more space that way, but I think that is the definition most people on the street would give...
> ...


ah, but what defines 'straddling' it? If your centre of gravity is behind the centre of gravity of the saddle, which it's quite possible for it to be, then I could argue that you're not actually straddling it. If you're only astride the front wheel and pushing it backwards with the handlebars, are you then still straddling it? You see - where do you draw the line?


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

I'm not convinced that cycling on the pavement and accusing pedestrians of crimes is the best way to promote cycling.

Jeremy Clarkson

"What did I see yesterday? A plonker on a bike on the pavement. Little old ladies were dropping their shopping. Small children were jumping out of the way. 'Excuse me,' I say, 'You shouldn't be on the pavement.' 
'Molested any children lately, you paedophile," he replies. And then they wonder why they're unpopular."


----------



## MarkF (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> ah, but what defines 'straddling' it? If your centre of gravity is behind the centre of gravity of the saddle, which it's quite possible for it to be, then I could argue that you're not actually straddling it. If you're only astride the front wheel and pushing it backwards with the handlebars, are you then still straddling it? You see - where do you draw the line?





Are there any good "put downs" or what then? I am lucky I haven't been hassled or abused yet, maybe it's because I am big? Would like some good ammunition for when the time comes though.


----------



## Arch (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> ah, but what defines 'straddling' it? If your centre of gravity is behind the centre of gravity of the saddle, which it's quite possible for it to be, then I could argue that you're not actually straddling it. If you're only astride the front wheel and pushing it backwards with the handlebars, are you then still straddling it? You see - where do you draw the line?



Draw a line down from your crotch (ugh, thinkng about bonj's crotch <shudder>) to the ground, so that the line is perpendicular to the ground (that means, at 90 degrees to it...). If any part of the bike is behind that line as you push it, and you have a leg either side, you're straddling it. A smallish child could tell you that. It's a simple definition of the word 'straddle'. Nothing to do with centres of gravity. If any part of the bike is between your legs, you are astride it.


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Draw a line down from your crotch (ugh, thinkng about bonj's crotch <shudder>) .



Tell us more about the shudder, Arch....................


----------



## Blonde (9 Oct 2007)

I was once stood at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the lights to change when a woman with two kids in tow went across the road in front of me. 'Ooh look a bike' said one little boy. 'Yes' said his mum, then, to me, in a high pitched and what I thought was quite an aggressive tone, 'An' where's yer 'elmet?' I was tempted to retort with 'Where are your manners?' but refrained. How odd though - Do the GBP (Great British Public) actually believe that is is law that one must wear a helmet now?


----------



## Arch (9 Oct 2007)

Patrick Stevens said:


> Tell us more about the shudder, Arch....................




I'm trying to erase the thought from my head.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Oct 2007)

Blonde said:


> I was once stood at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the lights to change when a woman with two kids in tow went across the road in front of me. 'Ooh look a bike' said one little boy. 'Yes' said his mum, then, to me, in a high pitched and what I thought was quite an aggressive tone, 'An' *where's yer 'elmet*?' I was tempted to retort with 'Where are your manners?' but refrained. How odd though - Do the GBP (Great British Public) actually believe that is is law that one must wear a helmet now?


if you were wearing lycra shorts you could have shown her


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Oct 2007)

alecstilleyedye said:


> if you were wearing lycra shorts you could have shown her



err, I might be wrong, but I don't think Blonde is appropriately equipped to do so... 

 (On account of her being a Laydee, if my hazy memory of previous posts has not betrayed me).


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

alecstilleyedye said:


> if you were wearing lycra shorts you could have shown her




You obviously know more about Blonde than we thought.


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Patrick Stevens said:


> I'm not convinced that cycling on the pavement and accusing pedestrians of crimes is the best way to promote cycling.



As I cycle past a ped on the pavement, if they shout 'careful!' or 'slow down!', or 'get on the road - you shouldn't be in the pavement!' I'm going to shout "Well what about that dead body you've got buried in your garden?!!"


----------



## Blonde (9 Oct 2007)

I thought I could feel my ears burning...

As PS and JtM pointed out, I'm not appropriately equipped for such occasions, though I should have known that the H word would get those at the back tittering!


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Oct 2007)

Blonde said:


> I thought I could feel my ears burning...



I blame Panter. These days everyone expects people with Lady avatars to be blokes.


----------



## Blonde (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> As I cycle past a ped on the pavement, if they shout 'careful!' or 'slow down!', or 'get on the road - you shouldn't be in the pavement!' I'm going to shout "Well what about that dead body you've got buried in your garden?!!"



Don't they tend to just 'tut' or 'tsk tsk', in a 'Beano'/'Dandy' sort of a way? I'm afraid that I am a tutter and do that rather than actually confront anyone. Reminds me of an airport queue I was in where people were loudly tutting about queue jumpers but not actually saying anything to the queue jumpers themselves... Many of us are just too polite for our own good!


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Draw a line down from your crotch (ugh, thinkng about bonj's crotch <shudder>) to the ground, so that the line is perpendicular to the ground (that means, at 90 degrees to it...). If any part of the bike is behind that line as you push it, and you have a leg either side, you're straddling it. A smallish child could tell you that. It's a simple definition of the word 'straddle'. Nothing to do with centres of gravity. If any part of the bike is between your legs, you are astride it.



 you can't start off all mathematical and then say 'if any part of the bike is "behind that line" ... '

the phrase 'behind' doesn't have any place in a mathematical definition. Sorry. And to save you trying to simply patch up your definition by defining 'behind' the line, then I can tell you that I can perfectly easily arrange myself on my bike such that a line drawn from my crotch to the ground doesn't touch my bike in any way.
Oh, and another point - it is also inaccurate to describe a line as being 'perpendicular' to a plane (assuming we're approximating the earth to a plane, which I'll allow). The plane a line is in can be perpendicular to a plane, or a line can be perpendicular to another line that touches it - because then the frame of reference can be assumed to be the plane that is common to both lines. But to say 'so that the line is perpendicular to the ground' is invalid. Imagine a runway - and then imagine the 2-D plane that goes straight up perpendicular to the ground from the middle of the runway. The aeroplane when it is taking off always travels within that plane. But does that mean the aeroplane takes off 'perpendicular to the ground'? It doesn't make sense to define a line as being 'perpendicular to the ground'.
No, sorry - you're going to have to do a lot better than that. You're going to have to use 2-dimensional planes in your definition, I don't think 1-dimensional lines are serving you particularly well.


----------



## Carwash (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Oh, and another point - it is also inaccurate to describe a line as being 'perpendicular' to a plane (assuming we're approximating the earth to a plane, which I'll allow).



I think this is merely a question of unintentionally imprecise wording. You know this, but you're being an ass about it anyway.

If I may, I suspect that what Arch meant was 'orthogonal' when she said 'perpendicular'. If you're using a plane to model the earth, that plane would be given by the orthogonal complement of the shortest line between your crotch and the ground. This is not a sentence I ever expected to have to type, so thank you bonj broadening my horizons with your petty trolling.


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> you can't start off all mathematical and then say 'if any part of the bike is "behind that line" ... '
> 
> the phrase 'behind' doesn't have any place in a mathematical definition. Sorry. And to save you trying to simply patch up your definition by defining 'behind' the line, then I can tell you that I can perfectly easily arrange myself on my bike such that a line drawn from my crotch to the ground doesn't touch my bike in any way.
> Oh, and another point - it is also inaccurate to describe a line as being 'perpendicular' to a plane (assuming we're approximating the earth to a plane, which I'll allow). The plane a line is in can be perpendicular to a plane, or a line can be perpendicular to another line that touches it - because then the frame of reference can be assumed to be the plane that is common to both lines. But to say 'so that the line is perpendicular to the ground' is invalid. Imagine a runway - and then imagine the 2-D plane that goes straight up perpendicular to the ground from the middle of the runway. The aeroplane when it is taking off always travels within that plane. But does that mean the aeroplane takes off 'perpendicular to the ground'? It doesn't make sense to define a line as being 'perpendicular to the ground'.
> No, sorry - you're going to have to do a lot better than that. You're going to have to use 2-dimensional planes in your definition, I don't think 1-dimensional lines are serving you particularly well.



Poor old Arch, she's going to have to think about bonj's crotch again. Will she be able to hold her lunch down?


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Carwash said:


> I think this is merely a question of unintentionally imprecise wording. You know this, but you're being an ass about it anyway.
> 
> If I may, I suspect that what Arch meant was 'orthogonal' when she said 'perpendicular'. If you're using a plane to model the earth, that plane would be given by the orthogonal complement of the shortest line between your crotch and the ground. This is not a sentence I ever expected to have to type, so thank you bonj broadening my horizons with your petty trolling.



even so, 'behind' has still yet to be defined. If I define 'in front' as to the right of my bike, then I can get that my bike 'behind' that line by transferring my weight over to the right.


----------



## Panter (9 Oct 2007)

John the Monkey said:


> I blame Panter. These days everyone expects people with Lady avatars to be blokes.



I'll change it this evening................................................


----------



## freakhatz (9 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> Cycling on the pavement between some traffic lights tonight, for like about 5 metres, a woman with a small child apologised for getting in my way, then spoke out loud after me... 'you shouldn't be on the pavement anyway'.
> 
> I used to suffer this sort of thing in silence, but this time I had a stroke of inspiration and shouted 'Have you paid your TV licence then?'.
> 
> I could tell by the 2 seconds of silence and the confused, stifled abuse she shouted after me that she *hadn't* actually paid her TV licence and I had the moral upper ground.



You were right. She should have paid her TV licence.


----------



## Arch (9 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> even so, 'behind' has still yet to be defined. If I define 'in front' as to the right of my bike, then I can get that my bike 'behind' that line by transferring my weight over to the right.



Behind, meaning, obviously, in the other direction to the direction in which you are facing and moving. If you are pushing it backwards while straddling the front wheel, part of that front wheel will be behind the line. If you are astride the rear wheel, pushing the bike forward, part of the rear wheel will be behind the line.

Can you really not think of anything better to do that be try to look deliberately thick? How sad. You could try looking up the meaning of arrow and no entry signs in the Highway Code for a start...


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Behind, meaning, obviously, in the other direction to the direction in which you are facing and moving. If you are pushing it backwards while straddling the front wheel, part of that front wheel will be behind the line. If you are astride the rear wheel, pushing the bike forward, part of the rear wheel will be behind the line.



oh, lighten up for gods sake. this 'definition of cycling' thing is one of my pet beefs but it's only meant as a joke. But what about this one - what if you're holding it vertical with the handlebars at head height and just the rear wheel on the ground? At some points in your stride part of the handlebars may be behind the line, so is that cycling or is that pedestrianning? And come to think of it when you're pushing it when it's beside you it's got the back wheel behind the line and the front wheel in front of it - so defining it in terms of whether or not it's behind the line doesn't work purely on that basis!
And you know perfectly well that I understand the law, I just make use of selective application of it.



Arch said:


> Can you really not think of anything better to do that be try to look deliberately thick? How sad. You could try looking up the meaning of arrow and no entry signs in the Highway Code for a start...


Arch - it's only meant as a bit of fun - if it winds you up, just call me a tit and ignore me...I wouldn't want anyone getting angry on my account, I sometimes suspect you fall into that demographic unnecessarily.


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2007)

Now calm down you two or I shall have to keep you in after school
I may have to administer punishment if this carries on

Sur le continent, pavements are frequently shared use and no-one has a problem as long as cyclists don't cycle recklessly


----------



## Arch (9 Oct 2007)

rich p said:


> Now calm down you two or I shall have to keep you in after school
> I may have to administer punishment if this carries on
> 
> Sur le continent, pavements are frequently shared use and no-one has a problem as long as cyclists don't cycle recklessly



You can't punish me, remember? I have something....

The trouble is, for every, oh, I dunno,, say 10 cyclists who could happily share a pavement safely with pedestrians, there's one who can't help riding irresponsibly.

That said, in York you'd be mental to want to share the pavement with 300 photograph taking tourists....

Bonj, you're a tit. 

I shall now ignore you for at least three hours, by dint of getting astride my bike (with mudguards) and riding carefully and with due respect for the Highway Code out to the stables, where I will ride a horse for an hour. If I can think of anything else you disagree with along the way, I'll try and do that too...


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> You can't punish me, remember? I have something....
> 
> ...




Get it over with Arch - post the photos to his wife, employer, the local vicar (unless he's in them too ) his housemaster, the News of the World, the CPS "Special Unit" and the Worshipful Grandmaster of his lodge.


----------



## bonj2 (9 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> You can't punish me, remember? I have something....
> 
> The trouble is, for every, oh, I dunno,, say 10 cyclists who could happily share a pavement safely with pedestrians, there's one who can't help riding irresponsibly.
> 
> ...



I'm sure you've only decided to ride a horse to spite me, because I disagree with horses


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2007)

Patrick Stevens said:


> Get it over with Arch - post the photos to his wife, employer, the local vicar (unless he's in them too ) his housemaster, the News of the World, the CPS "Special Unit" and the Worshipful Grandmaster of his lodge.



Oi, Patrick, don't encourage her and I promise that I'll never to try to pull your online arm candy or tell her about your erm... relationship with Vivienne-Ann


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (9 Oct 2007)

rich p said:


> or tell her about your erm... relationship with Vivienne-Ann



She was at the gym the other night - her body is absolutely fantastic.  It inspired me to work even harder to get the six pack up to scratch.


----------



## Dayvo (9 Oct 2007)

MarkF said:


> Are there any good "put downs" or what then?



_Fukk off you c*#t_ works for me, but ONLY if I'm in the right. 
Then I can be suitably eloquent and smug!


----------



## Cab (9 Oct 2007)

If I was cycling on the pavement, or had a foot on the pavement, or was straddling my bike on the pavement, and got lip from a pedestrian... Well, I'd take it. Its a fair cop. Wouldn't happen though, I don't ride on the pavement.

Last time I _did_ get lip for that it was 'cos I hopped onto the pavement and stopped to allow an emergency vehicle (it was a fire engine) past in a narrow street. An old lady _crossed the road_ to tell me off. I wasn't polite to her.

Last time I got grief from a pedestrian (in fact nearly every time) it has been on a shared use pavement. I'd generally stick with mildly sarcastic in response, rather than insulting.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Last time I _did_ get lip for that it was 'cos I hopped onto the pavement and stopped to allow an emergency vehicle (it was a fire engine) past in a narrow street. An old lady _crossed the road_ to tell me off. I wasn't polite to her.



"Oh piss off, you interfering old boot" strikes me as appropriate in that instance. She actually went to the trouble of crossing the road just to have a go at you? What a sad empty life she must have.


----------



## Abitrary (9 Oct 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> "*Oh piss off, you interfering old boot" *strikes me as appropriate in that instance. She actually went to the trouble of crossing the road just to have a go at you? What a sad empty life she must have.



Thanks all. *especially* those that answered the question.

I will now get off the bike at junctions and pretend that I am in a cyclo cross competition.

I find that fantastical thoughts whilst cycling can magnify the experience 20 fold.

For example, whilst trying to slow down going down a hill, I don't just order my brain to: 'pull the brake!'

I substitute it with stuff like 'firing anti-gravity gun A'... 'firing anti-gravity gun B' etc...


----------



## k-dog (10 Oct 2007)

Okay so this seems the appropriate time to ask this question - it's been kicking around my head since July 06. 

I was away with the Scouts I help with staying near Kielder and we rented bikes one day. We got a big lecture from the guy at the place about how this was England and the law was different here so we couldn't ride on the pavement.

He stated that in Scotland a bicycle is classed as a 'mechanical aid to walking' so you can use it on the pavement. 

I'd never heard that term before so does anyone know the answer? Can you legally ride a bike on the pavement in Scotland?


----------



## purpleR (10 Oct 2007)

k-dog said:


> Okay so this seems the appropriate time to ask this question - it's been kicking around my head since July 06.
> 
> I was away with the Scouts I help with staying near Kielder and we rented bikes one day. We got a big lecture from the guy at the place about how this was England and the law was different here so we couldn't ride on the pavement.
> 
> ...



Yes, the bicycle has a peculiar legal status in Scotland. Colloquially, it's known as a walking bird - I didn't hear the word bicycle until I was in my mid teens. Although the pavement cycling law has now been overturned by the Scottish Parliament there are other customs around walking birds in Scotland. 

If you're ever in Scotland, here are a couple to make you feel right at home. Don't leave your bike outside shops - take it in with you. Shopkeepers don't mind this at all. Cyclists on the street say a friendly 'hello' to other vehicles by banging sharply on the side of their vehicle. 

I'm sure some of our other Scottish forummers will be able to tell you some of the customs they have come across.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Arch (10 Oct 2007)

Yes. And any Scotsman found riding a bike within the City walls of York can legally be shot, as long as the shooter uses a BB gun, fires from a passing chavved up Corsa, and shouts "Awoarrorroror" as they do so....

This may, or may not, be true.

Actually, until fairly recently it was technically la public duty to shoot a Scotsman wearing a kilt within the city walls, as long as you used a crossbow, but I think the council finally rescinded that byelaw...


----------



## k-dog (10 Oct 2007)

^ yeah, I know most, I'm in Edinburgh too.

Just hadn't heard the law that he was talking about.


----------



## jay clock (10 Oct 2007)

My two favourite put-downs: 

One from me - cycling along a wide cart track that is technically a bridleway but provides a lovely cut through avoiding a massive busy hilly road

Old boy with dog "Oi, you're not allowed to cycle along here"
Me: "and your dog is meant to be on a lead, so that makes it one all"

There are actually country code signs about dogs being on leads, which helped! He was lost for words.

The other was in the 10 items or less queue at Asda. A woman pushed up a trolley with well over 20 items. I was about 5th in the queue, and went to the cashier to ask whether he could request the woman to go to another lane. The customer turned to me and in a posh and very weary voice said "Why don't you just fu*k off?". We all just burst out laughing, then chatted about her as if she wasn't there while she paid for her stuff!


----------



## bonj2 (10 Oct 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> "Oh piss off, you interfering old boot" strikes me as appropriate in that instance. She actually went to the trouble of crossing the road just to have a go at you? What a sad empty life she must have.



do you think 'boot', or 'bag' has a better ring to it? 'witch' even?
I think possibly 'boot' if cockney, 'bag' if northern. Anyone else think of any way of refining that so it rolls of the tongue even more smoothly and flowingly?


----------



## Arch (10 Oct 2007)

jay clock said:


> My two favourite put-downs:
> 
> One from me - cycling along a wide cart track that is *technically a bridleway *but provides a lovely cut through avoiding a massive busy hilly road
> 
> ...




Nice one. Although, aren't bikes allowed on bridleways, unless specifically prohibited for some reason? I may be wrong, I rarely cycle off road. Would be even better though, to be 2-nil up...


----------



## bonj2 (10 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Nice one. Although, *aren't bikes allowed on bridleways*, unless specifically prohibited for some reason? I may be wrong, I rarely cycle off road. Would be even better though, to be 2-nil up...



yes they are.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Oct 2007)

Bonj, you really are quite the bundle of ignorance, LOL!


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Oct 2007)

Possibly related to the topic, ambling back to work after my lunchtime stroll, I was passed by a young gentleman in an Altura Hi-Viz vest (possibly a bib or tabard, must look up the difference), baggies and a green sk8er style helmet, riding some sort of MTB.

This wasn't on a shared use path (pedestrian only) and the little twunt passed within an inch of my shoulder (close enough to give him a tap, had I had the presence of mind). There was certainly room for him to pass wider, and no need for him to be doing the speed he was (a fair old clip). I have to admit, I'd like to have used a pedestrian put down of a different sort.

Whilst the likely effects would be different, I'm not sure how the lack of consideration shown for others is much different than that shown by a motorist passing me too closely, tbh. 

(Sorry for digressing).


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Bonj, you really are quite the bundle of ignorance, LOL!



??? But he's right. Bikes are allowed on bridleways.


----------



## Brock (11 Oct 2007)

Ummm to briefly address the OP how about 'Yeah?? Well YOU shouldn't download copyrighted pornography off the internets!!' Almost certain to be a winner.


----------



## Cab (11 Oct 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> "Oh piss off, you interfering old boot" strikes me as appropriate in that instance. She actually went to the trouble of crossing the road just to have a go at you? What a sad empty life she must have.



Yep, I hopped on to the pavement to allow a fire engine to pass (going out of Cambridge, Bridge Street/Magdelene Street), the fire engine passed, I was looking over my shoulder to get on to the road and there she was, crossing right in front of me from the other side and yelling at me.

Its a funny city full of slightly touched people


----------



## Arch (11 Oct 2007)

John the Monkey said:


> Whilst the likely effects would be different, I'm not sure how the lack of consideration shown for others is much different than that shown by a motorist passing me too closely, tbh.
> 
> (Sorry for digressing).



But the effects might not be so different - a bloke on a bike going at a fair clip could well break a bone if they hit a pedestrian (especially an elderly one). Indeed, isn't there stuff in Soapbpx about a guy killing someone? So I also think it's very much the same lack of consideration and thoughtlessness

No doubt someone will say "Ah, but a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian will probably hurt themselves as well, whereas a car driver is completely safe..." So what? The poor innocent person doing the right thing still gets hurt, or badly frightened. 

Cab, I have an image of your little old lady, like the Giles Granny, waving a disapproving brolly! One day, she'll do that and go under the fire engine you were trying to avoid...


----------



## bonj2 (11 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> "bonj said:
> 
> 
> > > Aren"]yes they are.[/quote']Bonj, you really are quite the bundle of ignorance, LOL!
> ...


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2007)

LOL, I had no idea whether they are or aren't, that was just yanking Bonj's tail. Looks like you're right for once bonj.


----------



## Abitrary (12 Oct 2007)

Bloody saw a couple of RLJers tonite on the way home

A mother and her daughter completely ignoring the red-man on the crossing thing, and a car making a rather sudden stop and honking them.

The mother and her daughter, being both synchronised chavs, raised their middle finger at the motorist and accused him of crimes of ignorance.

I watched all this disembarked from my bike, keeping close to a railing to avoid it hurting people. And wearing a helmet

but with the straps undone


----------



## purpleR (12 Oct 2007)

some of those railings can be downright mean, souds like you were doing well to keep it from hurting folk. Glad to hear you werewearing your hemlet. Sir, you are a true servant of the people, if I might be allowed to say so.


----------



## purpleR (12 Oct 2007)

<bubbles>


----------



## Abitrary (12 Oct 2007)

purpleR said:


> <bubbles>



The only way this can all go is if we do it the american way where they have ped laws, where the primary crime is called

'jay walking'

I spent a summer in LA once, interrailing, and a british guy got done for that.

The buzz spread around all the useless students in the hostel bunk room that one of us had been done for 

'jay walking'

We all liked the sound of it. It was like a Gingsberg poem with drums and the saxophone playing it's unruly rule-sound, of

'jay walking'

Even the smoke spiralling up from the voodoo spirit hatman in the corner said

'jay walking'

All I conclude is that it's got the best name for the least significant crime


----------



## BentMikey (12 Oct 2007)

I'm very glad the UK doesn't have a jay walking law. I was surprised and shocked when I first moved here, but I now recognize that it's actually quite enlightened.


----------



## Carwash (12 Oct 2007)

Almost ran down a pedestrian this morning on my way in. Saw him from miles off (as he helpfully pointed out) and he must have seen me (which he conveniently omitted) but he started crossing anyway. I took a line which would have taken me behind him... had he not then _really_ seen me, and frozen in the middle of the road like a stunned bunny caught in the headlights.

Screech of brakes. A short sharp Swedish swear from me, a bit of verbal from him... and a million and one true and cutting retorts occurred to me the moment he had disappeared. Always the way, I suppose.

Witnesses afterwards agreed with me that he was at fault for crossing despite seeing me and then for stopping dead (ha!) but it didn't half shake me up! I need a cuppa.


----------



## Arch (12 Oct 2007)

Carwash said:


> Almost ran down a pedestrian this morning on my way in. Saw him from miles off (as he helpfully pointed out) and he must have seen me (which he conveniently omitted) but he started crossing anyway. I took a line which would have taken me behind him... had he not then _really_ seen me, and frozen in the middle of the road like a stunned bunny caught in the headlights.
> 
> Screech of brakes. A short sharp Swedish swear from me, a bit of verbal from him... and a million and one true and cutting retorts occurred to me the moment he had disappeared. Always the way, I suppose.
> 
> Witnesses afterwards agreed with me that he was at fault for crossing despite seeing me and then for stopping dead (ha!) but it didn't half shake me up! I need a cuppa.



Here, have a cuppa!

Where was this? (Pause for short York-centric moment...)

And what did you swear at him?


----------



## Carwash (12 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Here, have a cuppa!
> 
> Where was this? (Pause for short York-centric moment...)
> 
> And what did you swear at him?



This was just outside Norwich Union, before Lendal Bridge. In hindsight I think he just mis-judged my speed, thought he'd be okay to cross, and then got a shock when I was almost on top of him!

I just said the first thing which came to mind, which happened to be, 'Satans jävlar i helvete! Kan du inte _se opp_ för _faan?!_' As I said, it shook me up, and the only comebacks I could think of to the accusations that followed came to me after he'd gone.

Mike is working there at the moment, and saw the whole thing, so he had a good laugh at my expense!


----------



## Arch (12 Oct 2007)

Carwash said:


> This was just outside Norwich Union, before Lendal Bridge. In hindsight I think he just mis-judged my speed, thought he'd be okay to cross, and then got a shock when I was almost on top of him!



Oh, on the riverside path? I've lost count of the number of pedestrians I've had to avoid there. They just switch off...



> I just said the first thing which came to mind, which happened to be, 'Satans jävlar i helvete! Kan du inte _se opp_ för _faan?!_' As I said, it shook me up, and the only comebacks I could think of to the accusations that followed came to me after he'd gone.



Sounds fearsome! Translation? Or would you rather not type that sort of thing, being a nice well brought up chap?



> Mike is working there at the moment, and saw the whole thing, so he had a good laugh at my expense!



 Although, I have to say, if I could think of anyone who might absentmindely walk out in front of a bike and be knocked down in humorous or bizarre circumstances....


----------



## Carwash (12 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Sounds fearsome! Translation? Or would you rather not type that sort of thing, being a nice well brought up chap?



Loosely the effect is analogous to:

'Fscking Hell! Can't you look where you're going, for fsck's sake?!'

...only rather coarser and with more of a flourish. But Swedish swearing works a little differently, so a _literal_ translation would be:

'Satan's little devils in Hell! Can't you look out, for the Devil's sake?!'

This sounds a little silly in English.

Getting a cuppa now.


----------



## Arch (12 Oct 2007)

Carwash said:


> Loosely the effect is analogous to:
> 
> 'Fscking Hell! Can't you look where you're going, for fsck's sake?!'
> 
> ...



I dunno. I like it. I'm going to use it next time.... Possibly with a 'Gadzooks' added on the end...

Perhaps that's the answer to pedestrian putdowns. A return to good old fashioned swearing. Gadzooks, forsooth! etc...


----------



## John the Monkey (12 Oct 2007)

Carwash said:


> 'Satan's little devils in Hell! Can't you look out, for the Devil's sake?!'
> 
> This sounds a little silly in English.



I think that's utterly splendid, myself. I agree with the addition of "Gadzooks", and reckon it should be said with a voice as close to that of Brian Blessed as can be managed.


----------



## Big Bren (13 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> 'jay walking'
> 
> I spent a summer in LA once, interrailing, and a british guy got done for that.
> 
> ...



Genius - CC has its very own beat poet.

Bren


----------



## Abitrary (15 Oct 2007)

Back to the original subject, I live in way one-way road, at the bottom, and I have to cycle against the flow to get to my favorite DCP (dedicated cycle path)

About 2 months ago, I almost knocked a bloke down... usual apology, and quietly '..and a one way street'

I muttered back, 'and you don't know your green cross code', but I was trembling with anger and guilt at the same time. Usually takes me 3 minutes to get over that though.

The problem is, if I go round the block, with a right turn into a busy road, it's a nightmare at that time of the morning, in a car it takes 3 mins sometimes to be let out. Let alone a fragile flower on a bicycle

The next option is save my life and the blood pressure of others, and go along the pavement to the next road.

Thanks very much though, but I'm very proudly doing the 2 wheel contraflow trip from now on


----------



## starseven (26 Oct 2007)

Cycling on pavements is a very bad thing, do it if you have to but be nice to people, your at fault if there is an accident and can face criminal and/or civil charges.

Being rude to people on the pavement is also a very bad thing, do it to women /kids and you might get away with it, do it to anyone else you could get a smack in the face.


----------



## Arch (26 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> The problem is, if I go round the block, with a right turn into a busy road, it's a nightmare at that time of the morning, in a car it takes 3 mins sometimes to be let out. Let alone a fragile flower on a bicycle
> 
> The next option is save my life and the blood pressure of others, and go along the pavement to the next road.




Here's an idea you might not of thought of. It is possible to push your bike without riding it, and you're allowed to do that on the pavement. Nobody gets raised bloodpressure, or angry or anything, and unless you're talking of a journey of half a mile or so, you'll only be adding seconds to your trip...


----------



## domtyler (26 Oct 2007)

You can cycle down my street on the pavement if you like, I want to try out my new technique for dealing with this problem, it involves a large piece of wood and lots of blood.


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

Arch said:


> Here's an idea you might not of thought of. It is possible to push your bike without riding it, and you're allowed to do that on the pavement. Nobody gets raised bloodpressure, or angry or anything, and unless you're talking of a journey of half a mile or so, you'll only be adding seconds to your trip...



Or just 'scoot' it, i.e. not being astride it but with left foot on left pedal, and right leg just dangling.
which technically makes you a pedestrian.


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Oct 2007)

Bah, shoulder the bike, and jog to the next bit of road, cyclocross style.


----------



## spandex (26 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Or just 'scoot' it, i.e. not being astride it but with left foot on left pedal, and right leg just dangling.
> which technically makes you a pedestrian.



nope thats illegal to i was a cycle messenger for 4years and ive been done for scooting and my boss was on the brink of been arested for it.


----------



## giant man (26 Oct 2007)

I tell kids off who ride on the pavements have to say, and i would have said something to you if I had seen you riding that day too


----------



## Arch (26 Oct 2007)

spandex said:


> nope thats illegal to i was a cycle messenger for 4years and ive been done for scooting and my boss was on the brink of been arested for it.



bonjy knows full well it doesn't make you a pedestrian, we've had this discussion _ad nausuem_, and he's just being nauseum again...


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

one foot in front of the other, yadda yadda....


----------



## Arch (31 Oct 2007)

User said:


> Except no such law exists in Holland.
> 
> The hierarchy is for shared use paths in Holland is actually: pedestrians, then cyclists, then mopeds under 50cc, then other motor vehicles (where permitted).



I reckon it should be a bit like on the water - steam gives way to sail etc.

Not so much giving way exactly though, I'd say, more a duty of care, so cyclists watch out for and take great care around, pedestrians, and on the road cars do the same for cyclists (and by extension therefore, pedestrians). 

Of course, I think that's more or less the law as it stands, just some people don't seem to have noticed...

Ideally, it should be a simple case of the less vulnerable looking after the more. But cyclists are in a slightly difficult position because in interactions with pedestrians, we're faster and sometimes heavier, but can come off just as badly, or worse, in a collision, unlike the car/cyclist interaction, where the car is faster and heavier, but the driver rarely comes off worse in a collision. So it seems sensible in interactions with pedestrians that cyclists take care, for their own sakes as much as anything else. It's like cars and HGVs - it makes sense for the car driver to take extra care around them and give way sometimes out of courtesy, because even if they're 'in the right', they're unlikely to come off best in a collision...

Too many people seem fixated on getting their rights, rather than using common sense.


----------

