On 20/10/2014 20:53, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2014 12:40, TMS320 wrote:
"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:02:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 19/10/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 18/10/2014 22:58, TMS320 wrote:
"Cassandra"
"TMS320" wrote:

And as Phil Lee says, most drivers don't have a clue about HC
rule 170 (as adequately demonstrated by Cassandra).

Although even the most retarded of cyclists are fully aware of
Rule 176. They simply choose to ignore it

There is a big difference between drivers causing danger to others
and cyclists disobeying rules. Do not to confuse the two.

Cycling through a red traffic light isn't causing danger to others?

It might. Depends on how it is done. But not in my experience as
driver and pedestrian onlooker. There are much bigger sharks in the
sea to worry about.

(BTW, I know you struggle with sort of thing so I shall point out
here
that the last sentence is a metaphor not a change of subject.)

So you firmly believe that there are no safety implications for anyone
else if cyclists break every road safety law in the book, especially
the ones about traffic lights?

Another example of you making something up out of nothing. You really
don't understand metaphors.

Pardon? What does a metaphor have to do with the danger of bicycling
through traffic lights?

I would have thought that you, of anyone, might realise. It is a metaphor
concerning the total set of hazards one has to cope with on the roads.
The
hazard of a cyclist going through a red light? It's deep in the
noise.

So it's not dangerous?

And not illegal?

And obviously said cyclist has no consideration for the safety of
pedestrians who may be crossing during the green man phase.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com