On 15/01/2016 12:27, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/01/2016 19:17, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/01/2016 11:09, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:24:19 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder if he was riding in the primary position?

Riding a bicycle in the primary position is an excellent way to make
sure that drivers can see you, but is no defence against a driver
intent on using their vehicle as a lethal weapon.

and on some roads it will hold up traffic and cause road rage.

No it won't - cyclists ARE traffic. And road rage is caused by
inconsiderate car drivers, not traffic. Anyway, it looks as though
Mr. Gledhill won't be receiving mail at [his apparent home address]
for quite a while.

You obviously hope that his family, despite the difficulties already
caused to them, are also going to be on the receiving end of bricks
through the windows and other terrorism perpetrated by militant, though
brain-dead, cyclists.

They can always disown their family member.

Why should they?
Would you?
Actually, I can imagine that you (and maybe one or two others) would.

If they were of the type who evidently couldn't give a **** whom they hurt,
then why wouldn't anyone?

Blood, as you might have heard, is thicker than water.

I would never disown a family member.

If you say so, I accept that you might.

There was a cyclist poster here once who thought it was hilarious that a
NIP for speeding had arrived addressed to him (as the owner of the car
in question) and that it was his wife who had been driving, as he took
delight in:

(a) telling the police, and

(b) telling us.

It must be a barrel of laughs round at his place. If I's been him, I'd
have considered employing a food-taster for a bit.