tdr1nka said:Balance and braking tend to be the problem when scooting as you don't get that much momentum.
It is a lot easier to push a m/bike than scoot it (unless you are on a downhill slope)
tdr1nka said:Balance and braking tend to be the problem when scooting as you don't get that much momentum.
User76 said:I've never exaggerated your riding ability.
User76 said:I would have told him/her to sod off. I am sure you would have something to say if you were turned around on your bike because you may start cycling on the pavement or jump a red light. Sounds like a right officious little nerk to me.
Arch said:The 'officious little nerk' you describe was simply enforcing the rules at her place of work. There are plenty of scumbags around there who'll simply ignore rules if it suits them - like the ones in the car who rammed the recycling collection truck in order to drive through. We get a bit fed up of people taking the piss, to be honest.
In the case in point, cyclists, and children on scooters are allowed, so they are not relevant to your argument.
Anyway, the lad had a scooter, with an engine. It would have taken him very little time to go round the correct way. I suspect he just couldn't be bothered with the set of traffic lights he might have to stop at.
very-near said:I have from time to time pushed my m/cycle through parts of town to avoid making a massive detour which the badly planned one way system enforces. a 50 yard push can save a 2 mile loop there.
Arch said:Pushing, as I said, would have been ok. We just suspected that scooting, he would have turned the engine on as soon as he was past the centre, and ridden off. It's a cycle and foot path, used by families walking to school, so it's not just a whim to keep motorised vehicles from using it (and he'd have saved a quarter of a mile, at best, I reckon)..
Of course, if the lad got a bike instead, he'd be welcome to ride through the short cut.
You've got a problem with bikes being allowed where motorbikes aren't haven't you? It says in the post you quoted that it was a cycle path.
Me, I revel in the superioirity of the unpowered 2-wheeler over the power-assisted ego machine.
very-near said:Provided it had cycling rights of course
User76 said:Think about it Arch, you took one look, made a judgement and discriminated accordingly. You could be a correspondent on the Jeremy Bloody Vine show.
User76 said:Now thats a good point, very well made. It is sadly completely irrelavent to anything we are discussing, but a great point none the less. Besides, I believe that if Arch saw a child-molester in action she would probably kill him, most likely with her bare hands.
I bet there are lots of rules that she chooses not to enforce
thomas said:Maybe I should have quoted this to make my point clearer:
Just because she doesn't choose to enforce other rules or stop illegal things from happening doesn't mean she shouldn't be able to enforce any rules.
User76 said:Thomas, are you seriously suggesting that a nature reserve near York has a rule which states "No interfering with children near the hatchery or duck pond"?
Interfering with children is illegal, we should all intervene if we see or suspect it.
Not tucking your shirt in at school is against the rules.
Are you able to see the difference?
In this case a humorless jobsworth saw a young lad and thought "Aha, rule 17, I'll send him around the long way, then I will have done something good and of importance" I am willing to bet she would not have done the same thing to me. Therefore she made a decision, and discriminated on the basis of that decision/pre-conception. For crying out loud, they did it on the basis they thought that maybe there was a possibility he may do something It's about consistency, she will make decisions at times to let things go, we all do. On this occassion she, and dare I suggest Arch, wielded their tiny little bit of power in an inappropriate way.