Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 30 Dec 2009 19:46 DavidR wrote: > On 30/12/2009 19:15, The Medway Handyman wrote: >> DavidR wrote: >>>> >>>> How much evidence to you want - to ignore? >>> >>> When are you going to provide some? >> >> I've provided plenty, you choose to ignore it. Local authorities, >> police, hosptals, schools all over the UK are concerned about >> dangerous cyclists. Real problems, real concerns from responsible >> people - and you choose to ignore it. Speaks volumes. > > Then it's necessary to disagree on what constitutes "evidence". Anything that doesn't support your cause isn't evidence then? Wriggling again? >>> As I explained earlier, the restricted visibility from a car usually >>> makes it impossible to do anything other than blunder through. >> >> You appear to have overlooked those large glass areas called windows. > > And since I am familiar with both modes, I don't overlook other > principal factors. You just have to accept a simple fact that there > is a VERY big difference. I think you have to accept that you are talking complete shite. This visibility thing is a complete red herring. Cyclists disregard the law because they have utter contempt for pedestrians & motorists and they know they can get away with it because they are completely unregulated. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: DavidR on 31 Dec 2009 08:03 On 31/12/2009 00:46, The Medway Handyman wrote: > DavidR wrote: >> On 30/12/2009 19:15, The Medway Handyman wrote: >>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How much evidence to you want - to ignore? >>>> >>>> When are you going to provide some? >>> >>> I've provided plenty, you choose to ignore it. Local authorities, >>> police, hosptals, schools all over the UK are concerned about >>> dangerous cyclists. Real problems, real concerns from responsible >>> people - and you choose to ignore it. Speaks volumes. >> >> Then it's necessary to disagree on what constitutes "evidence". > > Anything that doesn't support your cause isn't evidence then? But for any proposals to have legs it's not just "cyclists" that need to be convinced... > Wriggling again? ....and when you present them to the powers that be, what questions will they start asking? At the moment it looks as though responsible cyclists only need to point and snigger.
From: The Medway Handyman on 31 Dec 2009 09:16 DavidR wrote: > On 31/12/2009 00:46, The Medway Handyman wrote: >> DavidR wrote: >>> On 30/12/2009 19:15, The Medway Handyman wrote: >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> How much evidence to you want - to ignore? >>>>> >>>>> When are you going to provide some? >>>> >>>> I've provided plenty, you choose to ignore it. Local authorities, >>>> police, hosptals, schools all over the UK are concerned about >>>> dangerous cyclists. Real problems, real concerns from responsible >>>> people - and you choose to ignore it. Speaks volumes. >>> >>> Then it's necessary to disagree on what constitutes "evidence". >> >> Anything that doesn't support your cause isn't evidence then? > > But for any proposals to have legs it's not just "cyclists" that need > to be convinced... The people from local authorities, police, hosptals, schools all over the UK seem to be convinced already don't they? > >> Wriggling again? > > ...and when you present them to the powers that be, what questions > will they start asking? At the moment it looks as though responsible > cyclists only need to point and snigger. 'responsible cyclists' is clearly an oxymoron. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: Judith Smith on 1 Jan 2010 18:41 On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:56:39 +0000, Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> wrote: >Give up Phil - you ain't doing yourself any favours 'coz even the most >retarded poster is making you look like a complete prick. > >Happi Remind me - why do people call him Anchor Lee? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Peter Grange on 1 Jan 2010 19:11
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:41:55 +0000, Judith Smith <judithsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:56:39 +0000, Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> >wrote: > >>Give up Phil - you ain't doing yourself any favours 'coz even the most >>retarded poster is making you look like a complete prick. >> >>Happi > > >Remind me - why do people call him Anchor Lee? "People"? Apart from you, can you name 5 others? Your MP perhaps? |