Page 5 of 5

Re: Cyclecraft

Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 9:33am
by thirdcrank
pjclinch wrote: I think you mean "oldest"

I'm on the point of getting my free telly licence then losing it within a few months. There will be many of the best jokes which amused my ancestors. I was probably on the receiving end of the agar jelly humour as recently as the mid 1950s. The real hoot was that agar jelly is a sterile medium. Mixed reception because some of the more perceptive girls thought that shooting blanks, long before the expression was coined for vasectomies, would be a good idea.

Re: Cyclecraft

Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 10:35am
by Bmblbzzz
I'm sorry to have cracked such a stale egg. I didn't know agar was so well known. It was certainly a bit weird in the 1970s when my mum used that, rather than gelatine.

Re: Cyclecraft

Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 11:30am
by thirdcrank
None taken. :D

Re: Cyclecraft

Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 11:54am
by mjr
thirdcrank wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I agree! But I can still understand the argument that segregation will lead to cyclists losing their rights to use the road, like in the Netherlands.

Good. Another point I often make is that getting cyclists out of the road is the easy bit. Producing decent alternative provision is beyond the wit / budget of those given the job, often the most junior highwaymen as a career step to providing for motor traffic.

I can understand the argument, but I also think it's rubbish. We've seen time and again that whether cyclists are banned from roads is almost completely unrelated from whether there is any alternative provision, plus I agree with gaz that It's much cheaper to scare them off and then declare that as there are no vulnerable road users you don't have to provide for them which is a tactic we've seen used again and again, on parts of the A11, A14 and A10, even around Cambridge.

Re: Cyclecraft

Posted: 20 Jun 2019, 2:09pm
by wjhall
Si wrote:
wjhall wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
.... JF was also an expert witness .....

My recollection,...

Yes, JF was at the trail where he was convicted. At the appeal the case was chucked out before the defence witnesses got to say anything.....some might suggest that this was on account of having a judge who understood law, as opposed to a magistrate who was an enthusiastic petrol head.

Thank you, a useful clarification.