On 03/12/2019 23:40, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2019 20:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/12/2019 13:46, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2019 13:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/12/2019 12:38, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2019 12:08, TMS320 wrote:

However, the main argument (on u.r.c) is about certain
drivers claiming that cyclists are evil pedestrian killers.
The main culprit x-posted this.

Only *some* cyclists are "evil pedestrian killers".

It's usually only cyclists (who don't ride fixies) that
backpedal.

"Evil pedestrian killers" is, of course, *your* phrase and
certainly not mine. But it is a very telling one and I am
grateful for your coinage of it.

I don't claim you said it and will take the credit, if that is
what you want. But I will maintain that it is a summary of you
stand for.

I do indeed stand four-square for the rights of pedestrians on
footways and in pedestrian-only zones.

Drivers can't physically get to all the places that cyclists can
reach and cyclists can't physically do all the things that drivers
can do.

So what?

I told you below. Your difficulty with reading and comprehension is long
established.

The law about what either group may do is not unclear because of it.
You always set very narrow limits such as "a driver never does
[whatever a cyclist is supposedly doing wrong]". Well actually,
sometimes they do. And worse. And produce serious outcomes for
mistakes and incompetence.
But you don't, do you?

Speaking as a pedestrian, cyclists are not a big deal. There is no
need to treat laws as binary constructs.

Thank you for (at last) admitting that you do not care for the
rights, safety and welfare of pedestrians in any situation where
those things are in conflict with the whims and desires of
law-breaking chavs on bikes.

Ah yes, the old "a cyclist can't possibly speak as pedestrian". You're
just sitting in your little world and have no idea what happens in the
big world outside.