Pedestrian put-downs

[Blonde]

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]

I thought I could feel my ears burning...

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

 

[Blonde]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[freakhatz]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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