From: NM on 3 Dec 2009 22:22 On 3 Dec, 21:29, soup <1...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > NM wrote: > > why not L.A? > > Because these are UK groups? > > UK.rec.cycling > UK.rec.driving Sorry I hadn 't realised you were so narrow minded.
From: soup on 4 Dec 2009 08:41 NM wrote: > On 3 Dec, 21:29, soup <1...(a)invalid.com> wrote: >> NM wrote: >>> why not L.A? >> Because these are UK groups? >> >> UK.rec.cycling >> UK.rec.driving > > Sorry I hadn 't realised you were so narrow minded. If I was at all interested in LA driving/cycling I would subscribe to la.rec.driving or la.rec.cycling (do these even exist?), but I am not so I don't.
From: Conor on 7 Dec 2009 10:04 In article <fe20996d-75d5-49e6-9e12-a91cf55c0833 @m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, Doug says... > She ran over the cyclists foot. > I didn't see that. I saw a conveniently timed shot and someone placing their foot to look like it but not the actual event. > > As for the third party getting their bike run over, he deliberately > > placed it in the line of the car, knowing that any normal person when > > faced with an angry mob, would try to escape. > > > So you are saying that drivers may run over bicycles if they are in > the way? > It has been noted that you tried to ignore the fact there was an angry mob. > > Completely 100% fabricated event as I've described which is why the > > Police who were filming the event took no action. > > > It wasn't the police filming. > Indeed - it was a bunch of cycling loonies on a demonstration. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Doug on 8 Dec 2009 00:36 On 7 Dec, 15:04, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > In article <fe20996d-75d5-49e6-9e12-a91cf55c0833 > @m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, Doug says... > > > She ran over the cyclists foot. > > I didn't see that. I saw a conveniently timed shot and someone placing > their foot to look like it but not the actual event. > I suppose you also didn't see the motorist crossing the central reservation to pursue the cyclists? And what about the witnesses report that accompanied the video? > > > > As for the third party getting their bike run over, he deliberately > > > placed it in the line of the car, knowing that any normal person when > > > faced with an angry mob, would try to escape. > > > So you are saying that drivers may run over bicycles if they are in > > the way? > > It has been noted that you tried to ignore the fact there was an angry > mob. > That doesn't answer my question. If the motorist hadn't pursued and assaulted the cyclist they would not have been angry. > > > > Completely 100% fabricated event as I've described which is why the > > > Police who were filming the event took no action. > > > It wasn't the police filming. > > Indeed - it was a bunch of cycling loonies on a demonstration. > So you think, like the police, that it justifies the use of a car as a weapon to deliberately physically assault someone and damage a bicycle? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Drivers inability to judge time and distance. Next: Rover 75 owners ? |