A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Roger Thorpe on 19 May 2010 08:40 JMS wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:35:09 +0100, bugbear > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > > >>>>> You know - two hands on the handle bars - one or two feet on the floor >>>>> - that sort of thing. >>>>> >>>> I don't think that you've ever ridden a recumbent then. >>> >>> Did I say I had. >> No. But strangely, you *were* handing out ill founded opinions on how to ride one. >> >> BugBear > > > So you ride one by putting your foot down, do you? > > I was not advising on how to ride one. > > No doubt you will be able to explain why the rider of the recumbent > could not put down a foot or feet? > > Are you suggesting that they are inherently unstable - perhaps should > not be on the road? I'm sure that you still have Guy's page bookmarked and you will remember the picture of him riding a recumbent. Using a little imagination you will be able to see how using his foot for support on the pavement will be less stable than using his hand to do so. To make it clear: His foot would be roughly abreast of the front wheel whilst his hand would be close to the mid-point. In addition to this the hand would offer better grip than the shoes would. Are you really incapable of working this out for yourself? -- Roger Thorpe ....Wait a minute, It's stopped raining/ Guys are swimming, guys are sailing.....
From: GT on 19 May 2010 08:43 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:8302be2c-930a-4be2-8517-0bd21d88403b(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com... 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? > > > >> 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. > > > Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous > > situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. > > This knob is clearly desperately looking for anything that shows how hard > done by he is. Two cameras on a push bike? > And why not? > > > As I > > have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers > > going through red lights and driving on pavements. > > You won't need much film. Drivers rarely jump lights or drive on > pavements - that is the territory of the cyclist. > You'd be surprised. I take it you don't live in London. BTW, such cameras don't use film any more. and are useless anyway because cyclists don't carry rear identification plates so the cameras can't identify them as they ride through the red lights!
From: GT on 19 May 2010 08:46 "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 drives a car in order to arrive at work >>on time and not get the sack is a useful member of society IFTFY
From: GT on 19 May 2010 08:55 "Doug" <jagmad(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- >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> The police driver will have seen the adult pull over and stop as the >> sirens >> moved closer. He left an 18-inch gap between his car and the stationary >> vehicle as he knew that the cyclist was aware of the car's presense. If >> the >> cyclist had not been aware of the police car, then the driver would have >> left a much larger gap. >> >> >> 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. >> >> >Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous >> >situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. As I >> >have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers >> >going through red lights and driving on pavements. >> >> Good idea, then most cyclists would be banned - I rarely see a cyclist >> stop >> for a red light!! I have never seen a car go throught a red light or >> drive >> on the pavement. >> > That's because you are not looking for it and are only obsessed by > cyclists. I, OTOH, have often seen cars going through red lights and > sometimes driving along pavements. Also, they have to drive along > pavements to parked there. I'm fairly confident that I would notice a car driving through a red light or driving along a pavement! Of course cars have to cross pavements to get from the road to a parking space - are you seriously telling us that when you finish a journey on your bike, you dismount your bike in the road and carry it over the pavement to 'park' it? I certainly don't - I ride straight over the pavement and onto my drive. >> The cyclist in the video has a number of clips posted on youtube. I have >> just watched a few and it seems that he likes to ride along about 1m out >> from the kerb which is fine. Problem is that he deliberately makes it >> hard >> for people to overtake him, so when they do he suddenly drifts out a >> metre >> or two apparently without looking or signalling. This clearly dangerous >> behaviour is carefully timed to occur just as the cars go past, which >> enables him to put on a frightened "waa" sound on film and then shout at >> them at the next set of lights. He then carefully positions his bike in >> the >> middle of the lane in front of all the cars who are patiently waiting >> their >> turn at the lights and then sets off slowly, so as to ensnare his next >> victim. He doesn't use the cycle lanes. He is clearly try to infuriate >> the >> car drivers who *are* able to maintain an appropriate speed for the road. >> In >> order to drive a car a driver must pass a test to prove their knowledge >> of >> the highway code, a document stating that vehicles unable to maintain a >> suitable speed for the road should pull over to let faster vehicles pass >> and >> avoid frustration! >> > You just love motorists don't you and hate cyclists, that much is > clearly apparent, despite the fact that motorists are much, much more > dangerous than cyclists. Far from it, motorists and cyclists are all just people. It is you who is filled with hatred for your fellow human race - you have stated numerous times that everyone with a driving license is a murderer! 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!
From: john wright on 19 May 2010 13:59
On 19/05/2010 13:31, GT wrote: > "Doug"<jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:3d99d6b2-243f-41fa-ac2d-7c906a75150a(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > On 18 May, 10:48, "Bernard"<bernard.x.rams...(a)btinterent.x.com> > 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- >> >> 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. >> >> This was not a normal situation, it was an emergency which he realised >> because he stopped. If he was worried because he felt vulnerable, he >> should >> have got off the road. >> > > Doug said: > "But we know by now that the pavements are not much safer from crashing > cars, which can also knock holes in walls. Difficult to know where is > safe from these pampered killers." An interesting way to describe the Police. > I'm sure there's a safe place in your head somewhere - there certainly seems > to be plenty of space. > > Incidentally, whatever software you are using to post replies here has been > wrongly configured - you need to fix your indent character. Duhg never takes advice from anyone. -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it. |