Pavement cyclist knocks disability scooter and rider into road.

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist in question was one?

On 09/08/2016 11:43, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist in question was one?

I was making a helpful suggestion as to what another poster's point
might have been (when you asked for it).

Whether it was correct is something you are not qualified to judge. Only
MrCheerful can do that.

Do you say that it was *civilised* behaviour for this chav on a bike to
collide - on the footway - with this vulnerable victim, knocking her
into the carriageway, then, observing that he had caused injury
(bruising, three cracked ribs and a broken ankle), to leave the scene
(in what can only be assumed to be an effort to escape liability or
legal action)?

On 09/08/2016 11:43, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist in question was one?

He thinks that every cyclist is a Chav.

On 09/08/2016 12:02, Bod wrote:

On 09/08/2016 11:43, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you
are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist
in question was one?

He thinks that every cyclist is a Chav.

Not every last one (I want to make that clear), but nowadays, the
proportion is so high that making the assumption will mean that you will
be right far more often than you might be wrong.

I wish it were not so.

It never used to be so.

But it is now.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:54:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 11:43, Simon Jester wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/

Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist in question was one?

I was making a helpful suggestion as to what another poster's point
might have been (when you asked for it).

Whether it was correct is something you are not qualified to judge. Only
MrCheerful can do that.


So why not let your alter ego speak for itself.


Do you say that it was *civilised* behaviour for this chav on a bike to
collide - on the footway - with this vulnerable victim, knocking her
into the carriageway, then, observing that he had caused injury
(bruising, three cracked ribs and a broken ankle)

There is no evidence that this was other than an unfortunate accident.
Footway was never mentioned.
The only thing clear is that the cyclist was not cycling on the footway.

, to leave the scene

Which part of
"The cyclist, several passers-by and police officers stopped to help but they were instructed not to move her."
Did you not understand?

(in what can only be assumed to be an effort to escape liability or
legal action)?

The cyclist stopped and police officers were on the scene.
I know this is a difficult concept for a bigot to understand but maybe the cyclist was not to blame.

On 09/08/2016 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 12:02, Bod wrote:

On 09/08/2016 11:43, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:29:01 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2016 10:52, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:18:40 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard....t o_the_road/


Is there some point you are trying to make, or some conclusion you
are drawing?

That chavs on bikes behave like chavs on bikes?

What is your definition of a 'chav' and why do you think the cyclist
in question was one?

He thinks that every cyclist is a Chav.

Not every last one (I want to make that clear), but nowadays, the
proportion is so high that making the assumption will mean that you will
be right far more often than you might be wrong.

I wish it were not so.

It never used to be so.

But it is now.

Do you include the police around here that cycle on the
pavement(carefully) in our shopping square?

There's never any problems and nobody seems to mind.
Many people chat to them.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:33:30 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 09/08/2016 12:25, JNugent wrote:

Not every last one (I want to make that clear), but nowadays, the
proportion is so high that making the assumption will mean that you will
be right far more often than you might be wrong.

I wish it were not so.

It never used to be so.

But it is now.

Do you include the police around here that cycle on the
pavement(carefully) in our shopping square?


Or the bicycle paramedics at Heathrow airport?