A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:04 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:d2d58bfd-121f-4722-b594-3abf3ab38e6a(a)r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > On 20 May, 00:33, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> > On 18 May, 19:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Doug wrote: >> >>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Roger Thorpe wrote: >> >>>>> Mrcheerful wrote: >> >> >>>>>> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist >> >>>>>> had stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well >> >>>>>> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over >> >>>>>> the road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can >> >>>>>> be passed quite closely without any significant danger. >> >>>>>> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much >> >>>>>> more carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent) >> >>>>>> experienced (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped. >> >> >>>>> If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to >> >>>>> give someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright? >> >> >>>> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens. >> >> >>> Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a >> >>> vulnerable road user but is not treated as such. >> >> >> So you agree a push bike is not a viable form of transport? At last. >> >> > No its killer drivers who are not viable, in anywhere pretending to be >> > a safety conscious society to live in. They mow down children on >> > pavements as well as adults on roads and cyclists. >> >> > Unless you are suggesting that cars are the only way for humans to >> > move around these days, which make shopping and other activities >> > impossible? >> >> I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport >> chain? >> > Peer pressure fed by mass production. Wrong - its convenience, effeciency and usefulness to society that has 'driven' the motor vehicle to the top of the transport chain. I note with interest that you missed the many replies pointing out that cyclists flaunt many more road laws than the majority of motorists!! Oh that's right, Doug didn't have to sit a test in order to use the public highways so he is ignorant on that front and is unable to knowledgably discuss the legal requirements for travelling on our public roads.
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:05 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Q6mdnfH6eIv_dmnWnZ2dnUVZ7vidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:d2d58bfd-121f-4722-b594-3abf3ab38e6a(a)r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... >> On 20 May, 00:33, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > >>> I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport >>> chain? >>> >> Peer pressure fed by mass production. >> >> In the beginning cars could only be afforded by the rich and then >> prices came down due to mass production and the poor, ever eager to >> emulate the rich, started joining in. Then not to be outdone by their >> neighbours, possession of a suitably styled car became mandatory and >> so car use escalated to its now vast proportions, and with it the >> chaos and harm caused by such uncontrollable mass behaviour and the >> widespread problem it presents today. There is not a widespread problem - only you and your 1 man band have a problem!!
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:11 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:32bf0ce4-e4ee-4741-a87e-3d66712664b1(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On 20 May, 07:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> > On 19 May, 13:55, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:2c8e52fa-0ef4-4ca2-93d0-0ba1a2734348(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> On 18 May, 14:51, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >>>>news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- [snip] >> >> My reply simply states facts and comment in relation to motoring laws >> >> that >> >> the motor car driver has to comply with. If a few rogue cyclists think >> >> that >> >> they can do anything they like, film it, then twist the truth round to >> >> imply >> >> that the law abiding motorist is at fault, then you are bound to annoy >> >> people and incur such responses! >> >> > So called 'law abiding motorists', which the majority who exceed speed >> > limits are not, are in fact very much more dangerous than cyclists due >> > to their chosen mode of travel and its momentum. >> >> Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered >> 'e-bike'. >> > Wrong again. Due to the considerable difference in danger presented by > a speeding car and an extra 50 Watts on an e-bike, it is much more > than just a numbers thing. It is a safety thing. Particularly as the > speed of the e-bike is electronically restricted and that of a car is > not but certainly should be. Car drivers are able to control the speed of their cars. If your bike is uncontrollable, then damn right should be electronically controlled. Or perhaps its the nanny state who think that cyclists who have not had to study the road laws and have not passed a legal driving test should be restricted - now that is a good idea!! I drove at 70 mph for a good number of hours a few weeks ago and I didn't die. Doug, you tell us that speed is bad and kills, but I'm not dead?
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:11 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:S4idnQW8DsOJdmnWnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:32bf0ce4-e4ee-4741-a87e-3d66712664b1(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> On 20 May, 07:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered >>> 'e-bike'. >>> >> Wrong again. Due to the considerable difference in danger presented by >> a speeding car and an extra 50 Watts on an e-bike, it is much more >> than just a numbers thing. It is a safety thing. Particularly as the >> speed of the e-bike is electronically restricted and that of a car is >> not but certainly should be. >> > Electric bicycles are only restricted when running on the motor, otherwise > there is no restriction at all. They are all murderers then!
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:17
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message news:kco8v5ds88bmspmee3anj7ie8em7tvmuls(a)4ax.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> considered Wed, 19 May 2010 19:29:30 +0100 the perfect > time to write: > >>"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message >>news:8368v5luol0u8bl3enkl9md0e9732scktk(a)4ax.com... >>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> considered Wed, 19 May 2010 13:46:17 +0100 the perfect >>> time to write: >>> >>>>"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message >>>>news:mif5v594s09hk56kmfpjo0t06vmns0s6vf(a)4ax.com... >>>>> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Tue, 18 May >>>>> 2010 09:58:49 +0100 the perfect time to write: >>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:31:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman" >>>>>><davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on >>>>>>>youtube >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>anyone who doesn't leave enough time for his journey to work >>>>>>on time and gets the sack is a fool and deserves the sack. >>>> >>IFTFY >> > Exactly - so leave in plenty of time and use a bicycle! And where do you propose that I put my two children and my laptop bag on the school run, then subsequent motorway route to my work?? |