Happier diner Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, HiVibes said: Pulrose bridge works related more to increasing bridge height, and related power station cabling but carry on talking utter shite. You are nearly right It was rebuilt as it had been identified that it contributed to the NSC/Power station flooding as it was acting like a Dam. It was also at risk of falling down in that scenario. The new deck is higher so that more water can pass underneath However the cables were moved because of the new bridge, not the other way around 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 21 minutes ago, Stabit said: Are saying that you aren't inconvenienced at all by motor traffic, or are you saything that any inconvenience caused by motor traffic is necessary, or are you saying that cycling and walking are unnecessary? I said “unnecessary” inconvenience by the riding in packs as doc fixit alluded to rather than riding responsibly. Sometimes road users ( be they motorists, cyclists or even pedestrians) will cause inconvenience to each other. It’s unavoidable. Deliberately causing a larger obstruction than you need to is clearly irresponsible. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Oh look another thread that will obviously descend into cycling hating. It’s like Godwin’s law. what doesn’t surprise me is the OP is the current roads minister who despises everything that hasn’t got an internal combustion engine. Proper dinosaur mentality. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 2 hours ago, quilp said: You're just not important enough. I've no time for anonymous internet hard men with little to add but insult and provocation. Put the clown on ignore Quilpy, life is a whole lot better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stabit Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 10 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: I said “unnecessary” inconvenience by the riding in packs as doc fixit alluded to rather than riding responsibly. What's that got to do with men, women and children nipping down to the shops on their bike, or grandparents nipping into town to pick up a few bits on their ebikes. You are confusing active travel with recreational cycling, and your personal bias against cycling is clouding your viewpoint. Less cars = better for all road users (including us drivers!) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted November 22, 2022 Author Share Posted November 22, 2022 14 minutes ago, Gizo said: Oh look another thread that will obviously descend into cycling hating. It’s like Godwin’s law. what doesn’t surprise me is the OP is the current roads minister who despises everything that hasn’t got an internal combustion engine. Proper dinosaur mentality. No I'm not. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 20 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: No I'm not. But your top interests are cars, bikes and women... I'd say otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 23 minutes ago, 2bees said: But your top interests are cars, bikes and women... I'd say otherwise I thought it was 'girls' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Gizo said: Oh look another thread that will obviously descend into cycling hating. It’s like Godwin’s law. what doesn’t surprise me is the OP is the current roads minister who despises everything that hasn’t got an internal combustion engine. Proper dinosaur mentality. Dinosaurs didn't have engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Stu Peters said: No I'm not. What are you denying? Being Roads Minister? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Passing Time said: Put the clown on ignore Quilpy, life is a whole lot better Nah, don't use the ignore function. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, no matter how tiresome sometimes. I even bore myself at times 😄 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Christian Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 5 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said: I see it more as an individual making a comment on an online forum When an elected member of a department states something relating to policies of that department - it’s generally seen as that person’s policy stance. Therefore I expect to see Mr Peter’s voting against any active travel policies in DOI (which I then suspect will result in him being removed from the department). But I’m often wrong so… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 2 hours ago, Stu Peters said: No I'm not. Yes you are. You say it on these boards. why start the thread then just so you can get a hard on? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, The Phantom said: Dinosaurs didn't have engines. Eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 You get my vote Mr Peters. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.