Advocacy & Safety - Holding up motorists by taking the lane

That is about as vehicular as possible... but bear in mind that not every cyclist rides at your pace. Note the cyclists riding on the sidewalk to your right... consider John Forester at his age... I wonder what his speed is today. What might be the reaction from those motorists to a cyclist riding at say 10-12 MPH in "their" lane. (yeah I said it that way on purpose, as that is how motorists view the streets)
Note the cyclist to my right didn't even check if another vehicle was turning right. The turning vehicle should yield, but counting on it is not wise.

I have ridden at 15mph on this street (often when I get groceries and load up) and my wife used to every day as well at close to those speeds. She moved from sidewalk to street without us even talking about it (she cycle commuted before I did) because she had so many close calls with entering exiting traffic.

The average speed of the buses that run ever 15min on this street is ~15mph (including stops) when load is high. When cycling I have to pass them quite often. Of course they get up to 40mph between the 1/4mi spaced stops.

My comment about my speed was not that it is needed to ride on this street, but specifically to BarracksSi who mentioned a speed saying I would not make the next light anyway and that the sidewalk would be better. The sidewalk is not even safe at 10mph.

Al

Note the cyclist to my right didn't even check if another vehicle was turning right. The turning vehicle should yield, but counting on it is not wise.

I have ridden at 15mph on this street (often when I get groceries and load up) and my wife used to every day as well at close to those speeds. She moved from sidewalk to street without us even talking about it (she cycle commuted before I did) because she had so many close calls with entering exiting traffic.

The average speed of the buses that run ever 15min on this street is ~15mph (including stops) when load is high. When cycling I have to pass them quite often. Of course they get up to 40mph between the 1/4mi spaced stops.

My comment about my speed was not that it is needed to ride on this street, but specifically to BarracksSi who mentioned a speed saying I would not make the next light anyway and that the sidewalk would be better. The sidewalk is not even safe at 10mph.

Al

I disagree that the sidewalk is not safe at 10MPH. It is the intersections that are not safe... the sidewalk probably works quite well at 10MPH. At least around here they work... so few pedestrians use them.

However, my point is not that you blocked traffic, nor that you could or could not have made the light. My comment IS about much faster roads and how well cyclists integrate on those roads. Frankly you fit into the traffic pattern perfectly.

Personally I think vehicular cycling works very well at 25MPH, and even perhaps up to 35MPH where traffic is probably averaging about 28MPH... but multilaned arterial roads with speeds of 50+MPH with heavy traffic moving at that rate, are NOT the ideal location for lane using vehicular cyclists. And for those situations, if traffic is going to move smoothly, there has to be some other solution. And no, sidewalks are not the solution either.

Gene- I have only occasionally ridden on 50mph posted roads that had a narrow outside lane - and these were all in more of a rural setting where there was much less faster traffic - so passing was easy.
All my riding on suburban roads posted 50mph have either had a wide outside lane or a ridable shoulder. So I can't comment with any experience on the situation you ask about.

Of course many roads I ride on with narrow outside lanes are posted 40mph or 45mph and traffic moves faster than that unless due to congestion. The road in the video is 40mph posted (it was 45mph until late 2005)

Here is a different 40mph posted road with NOL. Note that all motorized traffic is faster than me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYSvFc50qA

Al

I disagree that the sidewalk is not safe at 10MPH. It is the intersections that are not safe... the sidewalk probably works quite well at 10MPH. At least around here they work... so few pedestrians use them.

Sure between intersections 10mph is OK. But there are so many intersections. How many do you see along the sidewalk here? Can you map out a safe route at 10mph on this sidewalk?

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=40120&d=1174496455

Note in this video I posted above (The one I pass bus on left) at 1:55 a dense group of pedestrians waiting to board bus. At 2:05 a car exiting driveway completely over x-walk. At 2:25 three abreast kids. What would I do then? Jump between sidewalk and road? That creates unpredictable behavior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NnobUTTcHk

Al

Hate to say it, but that's blocking traffic, not sharing anything. If you were a tractor or an Amish horse carriage, that's one thing; but, unlike those large vehicles, you could've moved over a couple feet for the mere thirty seconds that it took for all those cars to get past you, too.

Not saying that the honk wasn't excessive (it was), but I understand their aggravation, too. That's not a bike-friendly world.
I disagree. In my experience Noisebeam is as far to the right as is safe for cycling on a road like that, in those traffic conditions. I would have certainly not been any further to the right in a lane too narrow to share, with intersecting side streets and driveways. The horn blower was just a jerk cager out to prove they're a jerk cager. If they can't read traffic any better than that, to know when they need to change lanes to pass, then they are incompetent.

Actually, I would consider that road to be very good - excellent for cycling. The lanes are obviously too narrow to be shared, but there is another same direction lane that motorists can move into to pass without having to be concerned with on coming traffic.

Taking the lane (under the conditions allowable by law) is not illegal or unsafe.

It's legal to take drugs but does that make it right????


Passing a cyclist recklessly (as you recommend above) is illegal and unsafe.
Who is the sensible one here?

How would it be reckless and illegal to pass an object without touching. It's amazing what a wake-up call can do for some cyclists though isn't it?

Admitted, it could be unsafe, especially if a dithery cyclist wobbled and touched my paintwork.

If I was the motorist and the idiot cyclist was taking the centre of the lane I'd make damned sure I overtook him, even if the margin was inches, accompanied by an extremely loud and long blast on the horn.
Motorists who do this only demonstrate their own incompetence.


How would it be reckless and illegal to pass an object without touching. It's amazing what a wake-up call can do for some cyclists yhough isn't it?
In a state with a 3' passing law a closer pass is illegal. However 3' isn't enough to be safe when being passed by larger vehicles at higher speeds. This is why it's up to the cyclist to control the lane by their position, and making it blatantly obvious that a pass without changing lanes is impossible in a lane too narrow to share.

A wake up call? To me a close pass is a wake up call. It indicates that I need to be further to the left in the lane. Even if further left is the middle of the lane.


In any case the motorist is more likely to pass the cyclist by a larger distance if the cyclist is closer to the kerb than he would if he was taking the centre lane.
Biiig negative on this one. Sure the physical space is there, but many motorists won't use it. It has been my experience that the more space I keep on my right, up to a point, being the middle of the lane, the more room I am typically given on my left by passing motorists. This does not account for the occasional pinhead cager who is going to play harass the cyclist, regardless of the cyclist's road position. And by staying further left rather than up against the curb, I have room to maneuver to negate the pinhead's tactics.

Much more hazardous to the cyclist to stay too far to the right.

So are you saying one-behind-the-other is "sharing a lane"? That would be an unusual interpretation; one that I have never encountered before.

Don't try to be clever because you're obviously not one of the brightest bulbs in the box are you?

So what you are saying is that side-by-side is sharing, yet single file is not sharing.

Don't give up your day job fella. LOL

You are a moronic menace

and you are rude and obnoxious, I hope your children don't see what you write on here.

How can you equate "sense" (presumably "good sense") with a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. A considerate motorist would overtake using the full width of the opposing lane - that would be more sensible than the aggressive, rebarbative, "teach 'em a lesson" style of driving that you advocate. Moreover, why would you want to deliberately endanger the life of another?

You talk as if out of you're backside...... a load of crap: 'considerate, aggressive, rebarbative, "teach 'em a lesson", endanger life'? So many expletives.

Firstly, a considerate cyclist would cycle near to the kerb.

Secondly, try to look at driving a motor vehicle from the male perspective.

I'm a male motorist and you are a female motorist, so I can see where you are coming from. In my experience most women have a big problem when it comes to manoevering their motor vehicles. Giving an excessively wide berth whilst overtaking, or not even having the balls to overtake at all is just one of them.

I am quite comfortable overtaking parked vehicles, moving vehicles and even cyclists by even the narrowest of margins and have never had any problems in doing so, as I would expect that most male drivers and the odd female driver not to have. You as a woman though, would probably need have half a mile of clear distance from oncoming traffic and probably 3 lanes in which to manoever in and then still decide not to overtake.

So come on, look it from a male perspective! Overtaking is not such a big deal.

Easy just seems to want to antagonize it seems. Must be him honking here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6rLcJqhE4
Al

Noisebeam, you tube. It's the 25.4% (at the time of writing) that just want to antagonise (Queens English, it's spelt with an 'S' not a 'Z').

I trust you're one of the 25.4% then.

LOL damn easyrider you're on quite a tirade! Personally, although I don't agree with most of the things you say, I frequently find your comments quite entertaining (and sometimes the discussions that come from them). Keep going! :) Maybe somebody that wants to argue will respond. I'll just sit back and enjoy the good times :)

You talk as if out of you're backside...... a load of crap: 'considerate, aggressive, rebarbative, "teach 'em a lesson", endanger life'? So many expletives.

Firstly, a considerate cyclist would cycle near to the kerb.

Secondly, try to look at driving a motor vehicle from the male perspective.

I'm a male motorist and you are a female motorist, so I can see where you are coming from. In my experience most women have a big problem when it comes to manoevering their motor vehicles. Giving an excessively wide berth whilst overtaking, or not even having the balls to overtake at all is just one of them.

I am quite comfortable overtaking parked vehicles, moving vehicles and even cyclists by even the narrowest of margins and have never had any problems in doing so, as I would expect that most male drivers and the odd female driver not to have. You as a woman though, would probably need have half a mile of clear distance from oncoming traffic and probably 3 lanes in which to manoever in and then still decide not to overtake.

So come on, look it from a male perspective! Overtaking is not such a big deal.
DUDE!!:eek: That's the biggest load of completely idiotic, misogynistic, BS I've heard in a looong time!
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

So come on, look it from a male perspective!

You're providing more *perspective* on the type of people that honk than you realize.

[QUOTE=CommuterRun;5817883]DUDE!!:eek: That's the biggest load of completely idiotic, misogynistic, BS I've heard in a looong time!
QUOTE]

Hey DUDE, (you sound like a Beatle) my comments certainly aren't idiotic or BS, a little misogynistic maybe, but hey it's not a crime to be misogynistic. It is a fact of life though that women have problems manoevering their motor vehicles.

So, without being totally misogynistic I will hold my hand up and admit that there are some guys out there who drive like women!

Umm, "Hey Jude" is the song you're thinking of. Being from that side of the pond, I would think you would know that. But maybe your knowledge of music is no better than your driving competence.


...my comments certainly aren't idiotic or BS,...
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Advocating curb hugging at the expense of safety, and threatening anyone who doesn't comply with unsafe, harassing and illegal driving is both and more.

... It's the 25.4% that just want to antagonise (Queens English, it's spelt with an 'S' not a 'Z')...

In the Queen's English, one uses a possessive apostrophe. In Queens, NY, English, one doesn't give a damn about spelling.

I like Pie! :)

I find that motorists are 25.4% more likely to be courteous if you offer them a slice of pie.

just because someone (1easyrider) owns a bike doesn't mean they ride much- just look at this forum's primadonna safety nanny for similar examples of autocentric thinking not befitting someone (purportedly) getting in lots of saddle time.

soooo, I think most of us are in agreement some lanes are shareable and some are meant to be taken. Some posting here feel you need to slow the motorists up by taking the lane EVEN IF THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM, but that's a separate issue more evocative of paranoia than sound cycling advice.

I will generally not move very far right as sometimes it can be difficult to regain a lane controlling position.

"Lane Controlling Position"???? What are you like? Where are you coming from?

You really do cycle like a real life JoeJackAss.

Cyclists don't have "lane controlling positions". It's those big metal things with at least 4 wheels the control the lane. Cyclists should keep out of the way as much as possible otherwise they'll cop it from irate motorists one way or another, or in your case you'll continually keep getting stopped by those nice Law Enforcement Officers.

For me it would depend upon various situations wherever and whenever I happened to be riding. I don't take the lane unless I need to and share the road with others. However, here are some of those circumstances when I might take the lane.

1. Lane width and whether or not I would have a place to safely move over to.
2. Amount of traffic.
3. Road hazards (i.e. potholes, railroad crossings, bridges and bridge decks, poor pavement conditions and pavement endings
endings,
4. Speed limits.
5. Road or street width.
6. Bicycle, side, or breakdown lanes.

In my experience Noisebeam is as far to the right as is safe for cycling on a road like that, in those traffic conditions. I would have certainly not been any further to the right in a lane too narrow to share.

Stuff and nonsense, there are 2 lanes for overtaking for christ's sake and the idiot cyclist decides to extract the preverbial urine by cycling in the centre of his lane.

[quote=CommuterRun;5818802]Umm, "Hey Jude" is the song you're thinking of. Being from that side of the pond, I would think you would know that. But maybe your knowledge of music is no better than your driving competence.QUOTE]

Jeez, of course it was the song I was referring to. I was taking the pi$$, but it went straight over your head, just like those motorists will if you keep cycling in the centre of the lane.

In the Queen's English, one uses a possessive apostrophe. In Queens, NY, English, one doesn't give a damn about spelling.


Dib, dib, dib. Dob, dob, dob.

......and on the WWW we don't give a jack$hit about grammar, much the same in NY as cyclists appear not to give a damn about other road users. old chap.

just because someone (1easyrider) owns a bike doesn't mean they ride much- just look at this forum's primadonna safety nanny for similar examples of autocentric thinking not befitting someone (purportedly) getting in lots of saddle time.

errrr, 3 bikes actually and 100 miles per week minimum, purely recreational of course as I drive to work.

I drive to work to avoid holding up motorists with my bike thus avoiding making them late for work!!

I think most of us are in agreement some lanes are shareable and some are meant to be taken.


"Take the lane"???

There you go again. courteous cyclist's don't "take the lane", they share the lane and that means they get their ar$e over to the right hand side to allow other road users to pass.

If I was a cyclist attempting to overtake you and you had, as you say it, "taken the lane", then you'd cop for something from me and it wouldn't be seasonal greetings fella, I can assure you of that!

I'm assuming 1Easyrider is either a hopelessly ignorant idiot, or just trolling. Either way, not worth my time.

If I was a cyclist attempting to overtake you and you had, as you say it, "taken the lane", then you'd cop for something from me and it wouldn't be seasonal greetings fella, I can assure you of that!

A slap with a black pudding?

"Eee, Ecky thoomp!"

I'm assuming 1Easyrider is either a hopelessly ignorant idiot, or just trolling.

LOL. I assumed the same thing about you.


Either way, not worth my time.

Except for this post, of course.

I assume you weren't successful holding the lane up or there would be wanted posters on the snow banks!

PS You do what you gotta, then get out of the way. If you're being followed by a GEICO caveman with a 4-letter vocabulury remember that the Dell Dude did Dope and let the cat warm his brain cells for a eighth of a second for his pleasure. Yay.

You talk as if out of you're backside...... a load of crap: 'considerate, aggressive, rebarbative, "teach 'em a lesson", endanger life'? So many expletives.

Firstly, a considerate cyclist would cycle near to the kerb.

Secondly, try to look at driving a motor vehicle from the male perspective.

I'm a male motorist and you are a female motorist, so I can see where you are coming from. In my experience most women have a big problem when it comes to manoevering their motor vehicles. Giving an excessively wide berth whilst overtaking, or not even having the balls to overtake at all is just one of them.

I am quite comfortable overtaking parked vehicles, moving vehicles and even cyclists by even the narrowest of margins and have never had any problems in doing so, as I would expect that most male drivers and the odd female driver not to have. You as a woman though, would probably need have half a mile of clear distance from oncoming traffic and probably 3 lanes in which to manoever in and then still decide not to overtake.

So come on, look it from a male perspective! Overtaking is not such a big deal.

Where to begin!

1. You do not seem to understand what the word "expletive" means. My adjectives above (in bold to make it easier for you to understand) are apposite. Although predictably, you misquote me - I have never described you as "considerate", I actually characterised you as a "moronic menace".

2. Whether I am a man or a woman is of no import to this discussion. The diatribe above only serves to reveal your hitherto latent misogyny.

3. If you want to ride close to the kerb/in the gutter that is your prerogative, but why endanger the lives of other cyclists when you get behind the wheel simply because they do not share your fundamentalist views vis-à-vis road positioning? A considerate and skilled motorist would very rarely need to overtake a cyclist by a matter of inches (and never in order to teach them a lesson) as the margin of error is too tight.

Finally, if you buzzed a cyclist with your horn blaring like that during your driving test, do you think you would be more likely to pass or fail?

Here's a couple of clues from the Highway Code:

163 Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

223 Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Some cyclists who read this forum have demanded clarification of what some cyclist-equality proponents, such as John Forester, have called the "cyclist inferiority superstition," and how cyclists end up being treated as a result of it.

I personally don't like to use the term, but if I have ever seen a situation where it fits, well, here it is.

Where to begin!

1. You do not seem to understand what the word "expletive" means. My adjectives above (in bold to make it easier for you to understand) are apposite. Although predictably, you misquote me - I have never described you as "considerate", I actually characterised you as a "moronic menace".

2. Whether I am a man or a woman is of no import to this discussion. The diatribe above only serves to reveal your hitherto latent misogyny.

3. If you want to ride close to the kerb/in the gutter that is your prerogative, but why endanger the lives of other cyclists when you get behind the wheel, simply because they do not share your fundamentalist views vis-à-vis road positioning? A considerate and skilled motorist would very rarely need to overtake a cyclist by a matter of inches (and never in order to teach them a lesson) as the margin of error is too tight.

Finally, if you buzzed a cyclist with your horn blaring like that during your driving test, do you think you would be more likely to pass or fail?

Here's a couple of clues from the Highway Code:

163 Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

223 Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

You write utter rubbish AGAIN.

What on earth has the highway code got to do with the price of turnips?

I took my driving test 25 years ago

I'm quite happy to overtake anything by a matter of inches, motorcyclists, cyclists or even horse drawn carriages.... but I already told you that didn't I?....Oh, I forgot you are a woman......and

.....I am qualified Institute of Advanced Motorists!

The highway code has about as much clout in law as a budgie in a cat home.

Some cyclists who read this forum have demanded clarification of what some cyclist-equality proponents, such as John Forester, have called the "cyclist inferiority superstition," and how cyclists end up being treated as a result of it.

I personally don't like to use the term, but if I have ever seen a situation where it fits, well, here it is.

:roflmao:

If you are in Arizona and a half dozen or so other US states one is required by law to pass cyclists with at least 3' of clearance.

In Arizona one can not pass horses if it may startle them and if the 'driver' of the horse signals to not pass or come closer one should not proceed until given the go ahead.

Al

"Take the lane"???

There you go again. courteous cyclist's don't "take the lane", they share the lane and that means they get their ar$e over to the right hand side to allow other road users to pass.

If I was a cyclist attempting to overtake you and you had, as you say it, "taken the lane", then you'd cop for something from me and it wouldn't be seasonal greetings fella, I can assure you of that!
By your own admission, you are an unsafe road user. Bike or car, doesn't matter.

What I want to know is where you got the misconceived notion that having a DL and a motor somehow gives you special privileges on the road. Privileges that you, in fact, do not have.

Someday you will learn to drive competently. Then being able to safely pass a cyclist won't be such a burden to you, regardless of the cyclist's road position. Especially when you have another same direction lane in which to pass.

You make a very strong case that some people on the road are just out to prove they are jerks, well deserving of the title "cager," and well deserving of the single finger salute.

Why does this thread remind me of another clown that came in here a couple of times, about six months apart, awhile back, advocating riding on the wrong side of the road, facing traffic?

You write utter rubbish AGAIN.

What part of the aforementioned HC guidance is rubbish? Are you seriously suggesting that it is equally safe to pass a cyclist by a matter of inches with your horn blaring (your self-confessed admonitory overtake) as it is to pass by six feet + and not use your horn?


What on earth has the highway code got to do with the price of turnips?

Hey turnip-head, the HC is essential reading if you want to drive on the roads in England, Scotland and Wales. As your driving is inconsiderate and dangerous, perhaps it is time that you studied the revised 2007 edition. Here’s a link:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070236


I took my driving test 25 years ago

It shows. I think you should have refresher lessons as soon as possible. Better yet, tear-up your driving licence and refrain from driving - it will make the roads safer and more pleasant for the people of Yorkshire...


I'm quite happy to overtake anything by a matter of inches, motorcyclists, cyclists or even horse drawn carriages.... but I already told you that didn't I?....Oh, I forgot you are a woman......and

How do you think cyclists and motorcyclists feel, when you, the uber-motorist, overtake them by a matter of inches? Do they feel safe? Do you ever think about the needs of other road users, or are you just a selfish road-hog insulated by metal, glass and your boundless ignorance?


.....I am qualified Institute of Advanced Motorists!

That is a truly, truly scary thought, but I assume you are joking Mr Toad!


The highway code has about as much clout in law as a budgie in a cat home

But, read the following and try to understand (from the Introduction to the Highway Code):

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Hey turnip-head


Mr Toad!



Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

I guess you too are not the sharpest tool in the toolbox either, because apart from being rude and abusive you have to resort to "cut & paste" from a government web-site.

However, I'll give you another lesson.....read on: "The highway code is guide with advice for drivers, pedestrians & riders alike. There is not one single law in it and there is not one single person living or dead that has been convicted of anything specifically written in that little paper back book.

LOL ..... imagine it: "I fine you £40 in breach of section 123 of the Highway Code for leaving a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running. Hahaha, do yourself a favour woman.

I think you'd be better off teading the "Road Traffic Act 1991! You might learn something!

Better still you should have read what old Abe had to say.......................

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. Can’t you find an adult literacy course in your nearest town or city?


However, I'll give you another lesson.....read on: "The highway code is guide with advice for drivers, pedestrians & riders alike. There is not one single law in it and there is not one single person living or dead that has been convicted of anything specifically written in that little paper back book.

The HC is not law (but then again, as no one has suggested it is statute law, all I can do is laugh at your clumsily deployed straw man arguements). However, the HC does include references to many points of law and it can be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts. Do you understand this distinction, 1weaselwriter?


LOL ..... imagine it: "I fine you £40 in breach of section 123 of the Highway Code for leaving a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running. Hahaha, do yourself a favour woman.

Another worthless example from 1lazyreader. The quote from the Introduction to the Highway Code began with the words “many of the rules” not “all of the rules”. I take it you know the difference between “many” and “all”? Mmm, probably not.


I think you'd be better off teading the "Road Traffic Act 1991! You might learn something!

Most of us read, but I have long suspected that you do something quite different. "Teading" is wonderful term to describe your idiosyncratic efforts at understanding plain English.


Better still you should have read what old Abe had to say........................

The irony.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. Can’t you find an adult literacy course in your nearest town or city?



The HC is not law (but then again, as no one has suggested it is statute law, all I can do is laugh at your clumsily deployed straw man arguements). However, the HC does include references to many points of law and it can be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts. Do you understand this distinction, 1weaselwriter?



Another worthless example from 1lazyreader. The quote from the Introduction to the Highway Code began with the words “many of the rules” not “all of the rules”. I take it you know the difference between “many” and “all”? Mmm, probably not.



Most of us read, but I have long suspected that you do something quite different. "Teading" is wonderful term to describe your idiosyncratic efforts at understanding plain English.



The irony.

You are tediously boring....picking up on spellin mistakes now. LOL, Laugh-a-minute. Ooops.

I suggest you get back to your animal rights protests or climb up some trees to stop some roads being built, plait some wool in your hair, post off you annual subscription to PETA, plan your next trip to sign on for social security and think about the next holiday to Heathrow Airport to handcuff yourself to the perimiter fence whilst telling the policemen to F off because you are only there to make sure that no-one abuses the enviroment by actually taking a flight in an aeroplane and this is because you know everything and everyone else knows nothing.

Still, I guess it makes a change from complaining about fox hunting.

I like to think I'm helping drivers get in touch with their inner quiet when they're lucky enough to find themselves behind me. :D