Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 14:42 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 21 Dec, 19:12, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> On 19 Dec, 23:31, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>> Exactly how can a gritting lorry miss a cycle lane BTW? >> >>>>> Ask the gritters, but it shouldn't be too difficult to open your >>>>> eyes and note that they do so. >> >>>> You get full kerb to kerb coverage.... >> >>> Really? I have just been out in the car just to prove you wrong yet >>> again. >> >>> Just to the right of these parked cars is a cycle lane. >> >>> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4845/013sy.jpg >> >>> Kerb to kerb coverage? Yeah right. >> >>> http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6295/020j.jpg >> >> What a sad git you are. >> >> Still, nice to know I can wind you up to the point where it takes >> over your day. >> >> Simple Simon strikes again. >> >> -- >> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Oh you only come on here to wind people up! Why didn't you say? > > It all makes sense now, that's why you talk utter tripe all the time. > Just to provoke a reaction. > > Still you gave me a laugh for a few weeks. I still can't believe you went out taking photos of cycle lanes in the snow. Ha ha ha ha! -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist > > Take Care and goodbye!
From: Adrian on 21 Dec 2009 14:53 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Three ad hominem attacks in one post. What an excellent example you are >> to your county, Sir I believe I received the same treatment last time I >> was in Ashford. Very friendly place. NOT. > You failed geography 'O' level then? Are you suggesting Ashford _isn't_ in the same county as the Medway towns...?
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 15:41 Adrian wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled > happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>> Three ad hominem attacks in one post. What an excellent example you >>> are to your county, Sir I believe I received the same treatment >>> last time I was in Ashford. Very friendly place. NOT. > >> You failed geography 'O' level then? > > Are you suggesting Ashford _isn't_ in the same county as the Medway > towns...? No, just that its around 30 miles away. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: DavidR on 21 Dec 2009 16:55 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote > DavidR wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: >>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a >>>>>>> perfectly reasonable concept? >>>>>> >>>>>> Asking the person making the proposals to give their reasoning >>>>>> first is a strong objection is it? >>>>> >>>>> Not at all, but they are so clearly written there is no need to. >>>> >>>> The requests are clearly written, true... I still don't see any >>>> reasoning. >>> >>> I would have thought it glaringly obvious; >> >> Not at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. >> >> <...> >> >>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. >> >> You have replied only in the manner of a religious believer. I can >> accept that you're not a scientist or statistician. Nor am I. But >> substance is absent. > > I've replied in a perfectly logiocal manner. What 'substance' is missing? I had hoped you would look beyond my improbable scenario and just consider the missing elements of the argument rather than attack the scenario. Never mind. Your proposals are just so sketchy, there are so many questions. Just a few:- ~ You have the opinion that the behaviour you have occasionally seen is dangerous. Is it real danger real or merely some anti-social behavour that gives you the fear of danger? Not that anti-social considerations should be taken lightly but since you put the emphasis on supposed dangers, you need to supply some facts about them. ~ If a cyclist is inexperienced how does it actually affect "other road users" more than the cyclist's own skin? ~ How does riding a slightly wonky bicycle actually affect "other road users" more than the cyclist's own skin? It's probable that most cyclist casualties from bicycle faults are caused by unpredictable failures, not from slight wonkiness which is something to consider when you provide the material to back up your assertions. So, if you can get some facts about the supposed problems, lets look at the proposals. You say they "would" fix something or other. The "would" suggests some kind of gaurantee. Well...? ~ Would the "dangerous" types bother with registration? And if not... an ASBO...? ~ If you see someone going through a red light and they have visible registration what do you expect done about it when you report the "crime"? When you're given a crime number and an offer of counselling from a bemused call centre operator will that be enough to give you a warm fuzzy feeling? ~ If this rider has been reported often enough, is hearsay sufficient to prove guilt, before their property is officially stolen? I'm not a lawyer but that seems to be contrary to a number of basic principles.
From: JNugent on 21 Dec 2009 18:01
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 21 Dec, 19:02, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Oh FFS. How on earth can reduction in house prices be blamed on motorists. >> Absolute proof the figures are made up bollox. > > Try selling your house when someone has built a big new by-pass next > to it, then come back and say that. > Quiet secluded locations always attract a premium. Especially if you can get to them quickly via a motorway. |