|
Cyclists say the funniest things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it" |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it" He nearly died because he thought it was OK to ride into oncoming traffic to get past queuing cars, but you expect him to be coherent? |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:11:03 PM UTC+1, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it" He nearly died because he thought it was OK to ride into oncoming traffic to get past queuing cars, but you expect him to be coherent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRqeDEQcYk |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:59:23 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it" 'I know 'ees in thur 'cos I saw 'im come out' |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 11/08/17 21:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 7:11:03 PM UTC+1, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it" He nearly died because he thought it was OK to ride into oncoming traffic to get past queuing cars, but you expect him to be coherent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRqeDEQcYk Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:28:13 +0100
TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote:
Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 14/08/2017 11:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. "Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]." Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches? |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 14/08/17 13:48, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 11:22, TMS320 wrote: On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. "Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]." Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches? When you have nothing to contribute, try resising the temptation to reply. You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service. |
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 14/08/2017 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:48, JNugent wrote: On 14/08/2017 11:22, TMS320 wrote: On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. "Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]." Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches? When you have nothing to contribute, try resising the temptation to reply. You think that pointing out how cyclists behave is "nothing", do you? You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service. That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things. The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence. It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again defended that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general. BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good". |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com