The Unicycling FAQ

I’m thinking of e-mailing Beirne Konarski suggesting an update to the FAQ on
unicycling.org (http://www.unicycling.org/unicycling/faq.html)
The update concerns the topic of a thread last year about unicycling and UK
Law and would read something like:

"
United Kingdom

A Pedal Cycle is defined in Regulation 3 of the Pedal Cycle Construction and
Use Regulations 1993 as being “A unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or cycle
having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle.”

Unicyclists are therefore subject to cycling rules and regulations…"

(that would do but to be more informative it could include some of the
following)

" …

The Highways Act 1835 Section 72 states that you must not cycle on a public
footpath unless there is a right to do so.

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 state that when riding between
sunset and sunrise your cycle must have an effective rear reflector (red)
and functioning front (white) and rear (red) lights.

The Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 makes the following stipulations in
Sections 163, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 30 :

You must stop when asked to do so by a uniformed police officer or traffic
warden
You must not leave your cycle on a road in a potentially dangerous manner or
where waiting is prohibited.
You must not carry a passenger on a cycle which was not constructed or
adapted to carry more than one person.
You must not hold on to a motor vehicle (or trailer) whilst it is in motion.
You must not ride in a dangerous manner
You must not ride without due care and attention or without reasonable
consideration for other road users.
You must not ride under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
"

I’d be interested to know if anything there is wrong or incomplete.

Also - does anybody else have any suggestions for additions to the FAQ?
The question regarding particular form of discomfort seems to appear quite
often, for example.

Just musing.

Andrew (who is pleased that these days there are usually more than 1000
messages on rsu at any one time :slight_smile:
0xADF

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:10:09 -0000, “Andrew Feldhaus”
<Reply@Thread.pls> wrote:

>Andrew (who is pleased that these days there are usually more than 1000
>messages on rsu at any one time :slight_smile:
Nitpicking maybe: there is no such thing as a number of messages on
rsu. The number you mention is the number of messages on rsu that
“your” server retains at any given moment. That number is determined
mainly by (you guessed it) the retention time of your server.
Currently, the typical number of new messages in rsu per day is
between 50 and 100, which means your server’s retention time is a few
weeks.

But does the number of 1000 matter to you? I download and save
messages every day, after which I would not notice if those messages
disappeared from my server.

Klaas Bil

“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“credit card, Juiliett Class Submarine, top secret”

You can direct any suggestions and changes for the unicycling FAQ to me. Unfourtunately the FAQ is in need of some massive updates. A site revamp of unicycling.org isn’t all to far from happening, though. Once I get the forums <–> newsgroup gateway completed (which should free up some admin time I spend on forums), I’ll be working on implementing a new system on Unicycling.org that will use a WikiWeb-like administration system. This system will allow anyone that visits the website to edit any page, add new sections, and such… Some users (such as section editors/webmasters) will be able to edit a page and it’ll be changed immediately, and then changes from normal users will require approval of one of the admins or editors. I hope this will create a collaborative effort to be done in creating more unicycling content on unicycling.org and the web.

“Klaas Bil” <klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3c5dc34e.1085258@newszilla.xs4all.nl
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:10:09 -0000, “Andrew Feldhaus”
> <Reply@Thread.pls> wrote:
>
> >Andrew (who is pleased that these days there are usually more than 1000
> >messages on rsu at any one time :slight_smile:
> Nitpicking maybe: there is no such thing as a number of messages on
> rsu. The number you mention is the number of messages on rsu that
> “your” server retains at any given moment. That number is determined
> mainly by (you guessed it) the retention time of your server.
> Currently, the typical number of new messages in rsu per day is
> between 50 and 100, which means your server’s retention time is a few
> weeks.
>
> But does the number of 1000 matter to you? I download and save
> messages every day, after which I would not notice if those messages
> disappeared from my server.
>

I see your point.
1000 is pretty irrelevant. I should have spotted that, it’s only really
relevant if you read rsu by telnetting to news.freeserve.net:119 and talking
to the server with NNTP commands, which would be undeniably sad.

As your cunning statistics for 2001 show, rsu activity is increasing
healthily.
This pleases me.

Keep up the cool statistics-collecting (there’s something you don’t hear
every day).

  • I second Jagur’s question “that was cool,can we get those quaterly?”.
    (01/01/02 stats would be nice…)

Andrew (who is pleased that there has been a recent influx, presumably
post-crimbo, of new and eager unicyclists to rsu… And who is always happy
to be nitpicked at :slight_smile:
0xADF

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:12:28 -0000, “Andrew Feldhaus”
<Reply@Thread.pls> wrote:

>I see your point.
>1000 is pretty irrelevant. I should have spotted that, it’s only really
>relevant if you read rsu by telnetting to news.freeserve.net:119 and talking
>to the server with NNTP commands, which would be undeniably sad.
Or, I just realised, if you are offline for weeks (holiday or so).

>As your cunning statistics for 2001 show, rsu activity is increasing
>healthily.
>This pleases me.
I read every single bit that is posted but it takes more time these
days. Apart from that I’m pleased too.

>Keep up the cool statistics-collecting (there’s something you don’t hear
>every day).
> - I second Jagur’s question “that was cool,can we get those quaterly?”.
>(01/01/02 stats would be nice…)
Hmm, Jagur’s suggestion certainly did not go unnoticed. However, while
collection of raw data continues, processing takes quite some time. If
I’m begged enough I might do a limited effort e.g. the “message
totals” plot more often. I’m planning anyway to do a fullblown
analysis again after 2002.

Klaas Bil

“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“authentication, hope, 7 August, 1998”