"Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents".

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:22:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Marc wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:15:07 +0100, Marc
wrote:

I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

Be honest, you don't think it will at all, do you?



I'll be interested to see how Nugent tries to apply his " a word is
anything I mean it to be, no more no less" to the opinion of of a judge,
but I won't be bothering to feed him. I'm not bothered about the judith
thing, I never get to read it's rantings anymore.

That's yet more untruth from you, because you have not only read my recent
postings, but you answered several of them and took trouble to edit one of
them, trying (vainly) to make it look (superficially) as though I had posted
the exact opposite of what I did say.

I wonder why you felt the need to resort to that stupidity?


Some may say it's not a nice thing to say, but he left school at 16
and had no proper education; he is envious of people who are obviously
smarter or better educated than he is.

(I have no problem making personal comments about those who have made
same about me)

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Aard gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Actually, I have a genuine question here. Happened to me early yesterday
morning en route to a rally - overtook a cyclist who was well out away
from the kerb, not 'primary' but certainly not in the gutter, chap in
cycling shorts and top on a flash looking road bike. Hundred yards up
the road, some chap in a van is indicating right and slowing because
there's cars coming the other way. Two more cars behind him, then me,
and another car behind me, and we all begin slowing behind this van,
down to about 10mph or slightly less. Meanwhile this cyclist comes past
me and level with the car in front of me, riding through the gap between
me and the kerb, and then the van turns right in a gap between two cars
going the other way. So we all take our brakes off and begin
accelerating, but now we've got this bike alongside us very close. _We_
haven't made this situation - when we passed him we were overtaking
wide, but now we're close to him because _he_ has chosen to filter up
the nearside of us. What am I supposed to do - stop accelerating and
wait for him to get clear of me, and then wait for a gap the other way
and take him wide again?

Yep.

He's clearly a ****wit with the anticipation skills of a goldfish and the
observation skills of a mole - but that just means you need to give him
even more space, because you now _know_ he's an incompetent suicidal
cretin, instead of merely treating him as if he might be one.

It's not as if it'll add anything to your journey - roughly the same
amount of extra time as he's just saved with his stupidity...

Judith M Smith wrote:
Why are you such a prat - did you have a limited education yourself?

Left school at sixteen and got a manual job perhaps?

Oooh look, our favourite stupid **** equates people who leave school at
sixteen and get manual jobs with prats. I wonder who empties her bins,
stocks her supermarket, built the computer she's writing her **** on,
machines the parts on her bike (well the one she would own if she actually
cycled), makes the clothes she wears, drives the trucks that deliver it all
to her favourite shops, paints the lines on the roads she's such a campaigner
for safety on, and a whole hose of other manual workers who work night
and day for **** all in pay or privileges to make her life sufficiently
comfortable for her to be able to sit around spouting the kind of absolute
**** that she feels she needs to regale the group with.

Well, dearie, you've let it all out there. I'm very disappointed, I mean
just because you're a stupid **** doesn't mean you *have* to be an
intellectual snob. I mean, Chapman might be arrogant and opinionated
but I don't recall him ever making a comment along those lines.

Now tell me how you didn't equate leaving school at sixteen with a
limited education and and getting a manual job with being a prat, sweetie.

Love you!

Nobby xxx

Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:15:07 +0100, Marc
wrote:

I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

Be honest, you don't think it will at all, do you?



I'll be interested to see how Nugent tries to apply his " a word is
anything I mean it to be, no more no less" to the opinion of of a
judge, but I won't be bothering to feed him. I'm not bothered about
the judith thing, I never get to read it's rantings anymore.

That's yet more untruth from you, because you have not only read my
recent postings,


Easily cured in this thread, I expect it to degenerate into another of
your humptydumpty methodology, but you can do that without me, or anyone
else.

Dear, oh dear...

You really don't like being caught out.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:28:32 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:
Why are you such a prat - did you have a limited education yourself?

Left school at sixteen and got a manual job perhaps?

Oooh look, our favourite stupid **** equates people who leave school at
sixteen and get manual jobs with prats.

Perhaps you do not understand the question marks?

He appears to be a prat: I was asking why.

Answers may be that he was born a prat, or perhaps he did not have the
benefit of an education

I have no where suggested that all people who do manual work are
prats.

He is always commenting on people's English - and deliberately snips
posts to make them distorted.

You seem to suffer from the same problem as he does - an inability to
read and comprehend simple English.

Did you have a limited education as well - or are you just thick?

I suspect both.

Obviously touched a nerve.

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:14:09 +0100, Aard wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:49:03 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.


Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Oh dear, I can smell judith's objection to filtering bubbling up again :-(

Actually, I have a genuine question here. Happened to me early
yesterday morning en route to a rally - overtook a cyclist who was
well out away from the kerb, not 'primary' but certainly not in the
gutter, chap in cycling shorts and top on a flash looking road bike.
Hundred yards up the road, some chap in a van is indicating right and
slowing because there's cars coming the other way. Two more cars
behind him, then me, and another car behind me, and we all begin
slowing behind this van, down to about 10mph or slightly less.
Meanwhile this cyclist comes past me and level with the car in front
of me, riding through the gap between me and the kerb, and then the
van turns right in a gap between two cars going the other way. So we
all take our brakes off and begin accelerating, but now we've got this
bike alongside us very close. _We_ haven't made this situation - when
we passed him we were overtaking wide, but now we're close to him
because _he_ has chosen to filter up the nearside of us. What am I
supposed to do - stop accelerating and wait for him to get clear of
me, and then wait for a gap the other way and take him wide again?


"Hold the lane" is I believe the phrase you may be looking for.

His own stupid fault.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Judith M Smith wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:28:32 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:
Why are you such a prat - did you have a limited education yourself?

Left school at sixteen and got a manual job perhaps?

Oooh look, our favourite stupid **** equates people who leave school at
sixteen and get manual jobs with prats.

Perhaps you do not understand the question marks?

He appears to be a prat: I was asking why.

Answers may be that he was born a prat, or perhaps he did not have the
benefit of an education

I have no where suggested that all people who do manual work are
prats.

He is always commenting on people's English - and deliberately snips
posts to make them distorted.

You seem to suffer from the same problem as he does - an inability to
read and comprehend simple English.

Did you have a limited education as well - or are you just thick?

I suspect both.

Obviously touched a nerve.

You do, love, my funny nerve. I clearly am quite thick, Perhaps you'll
be kind enough to explain why those two sentences don't meant that you
think he's a prat because he has a limited education and left school at
sixteen for a manual job? If he's a prat becuase he did that isn't it
logical to infer that everyone who does so must also be a prat with
limited education? Oh of course, logic isn't your strong point, is
it sweetie. Must be your own limited education, I guess, or perhaps
it's just plain genetic stupidity. Anyway, bearing in mind how thick I
am, please do explain.

Oh, when you do try to explain it, try to do it without digging yourself
into a deeper hole, eh? Perhaps you'd better wait until you sober up
in the morning.

Hugs and kisses, night night.
Nobby xx

"Aard" wrote in message
...

Actually, I have a genuine question here. Happened to me early
yesterday morning en route to a rally - overtook a cyclist who was
well out away from the kerb, not 'primary' but certainly not in the
gutter, chap in cycling shorts and top on a flash looking road bike.
Hundred yards up the road, some chap in a van is indicating right and
slowing because there's cars coming the other way. Two more cars
behind him, then me, and another car behind me, and we all begin
slowing behind this van, down to about 10mph or slightly less.
Meanwhile this cyclist comes past me and level with the car in front
of me, riding through the gap between me and the kerb, and then the
van turns right in a gap between two cars going the other way. So we
all take our brakes off and begin accelerating, but now we've got this
bike alongside us very close. _We_ haven't made this situation - when
we passed him we were overtaking wide, but now we're close to him
because _he_ has chosen to filter up the nearside of us. What am I
supposed to do - stop accelerating and wait for him to get clear of
me, and then wait for a gap the other way and take him wide again?

That would be most couteous, yes, and strictly speaking it's what you're
supposed to do. But in that situation, he'll could be expecting you to just
get on with it when the obstacle clears - full kit indicates a certain level
of ability. So long as there's some space and you're not going massively
faster, just filter past again. Where was this? Google maps is pretty good
these days at showing how wide roads are so we can say if the road is wide
enough to allow this.

He's gained because he didn't have to slow as much, you'll not have lost as
you'll still be behind the car which was behind the van - win all round.

"Aard" wrote in message
...

Actually, I have a genuine question here. Happened to me early
yesterday morning en route to a rally - overtook a cyclist who was
well out away from the kerb, not 'primary' but certainly not in the
gutter, chap in cycling shorts and top on a flash looking road bike.
Hundred yards up the road, some chap in a van is indicating right and
slowing because there's cars coming the other way. Two more cars
behind him, then me, and another car behind me, and we all begin
slowing behind this van, down to about 10mph or slightly less.
Meanwhile this cyclist comes past me and level with the car in front
of me, riding through the gap between me and the kerb, and then the
van turns right in a gap between two cars going the other way. So we
all take our brakes off and begin accelerating, but now we've got this
bike alongside us very close. _We_ haven't made this situation - when
we passed him we were overtaking wide, but now we're close to him
because _he_ has chosen to filter up the nearside of us. What am I
supposed to do - stop accelerating and wait for him to get clear of
me, and then wait for a gap the other way and take him wide again?

As a driver, if I had the situation where a cyclist was alongside me I would
let them go rather than try out outpace them and possibly have to cut in
front or side swipe them to avoid hazards ahead. If the road/lane is wide
enough to share then it's not a problem. If the road/lane is not wide enough
then perhaps the cyclist should not have passed again, which shows a certain
level of ignorance on part of the cyclist. If cyclists are doing stupid and
dangerous things they need more space and treated with more caution.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:57:53 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

snip


Did you have a limited education as well - or are you just thick?

I suspect both.

Obviously touched a nerve.

You do, love, my funny nerve. I clearly am quite thick, Perhaps you'll
be kind enough to explain .........

Certainly - it is quite clear - you are correct - we have agreement
there - I will give you some help.

You don't need the capital P for the word "Perhaps" - only at the
start of a new sentence.

why those two sentences don't meant

You have used what is known as the wrong tense here. The word you
should have used is "mean" - it is called the present tense.


that you
think he's a prat because he has a limited education and left school at
sixteen for a manual job?


No - it is not as definite as that - I am not sure why he is:

He definitely is a prat;

He (like yourself) makes many simple grammatical errors.
He may have been born with a low IQ
Perhaps he has special needs (perhaps you have ) , or he may have
left school at 16 in order to take up employment (did you?)

Now whatever it is which makes him the prat - does not make everyone
else with the same background also a prat.

It would be wrong to say that everyone who is a prat has especial
needs.
In the same way it is wrong to say that everyone who is a prat must
have left school at 16.

If he's a prat becuase he did that isn't it
logical to infer that everyone who does so must also be a prat with
limited education?

No - not at all - I trust that you can see that if A follows B - it
does not mean that B is always a pre-cursor for A.

For example - I think we have agreed that he, and you, are both prats.

Now the reason for being prats, does not have to be the same at all.

You may just be pretending to be one; in fact I think you must be - I
am not convinced that anyone could be as great a prat as you appear.

So well done for that!!

Oh of course, logic isn't your strong point, is
it sweetie. Must be your own limited education, I guess, or perhaps
it's just plain genetic stupidity.


Anyway, bearing in mind how thick I am, please do explain.


I trust I have now done that.

Is there anything else I may help you with?

(Must go - I work in Tesco's as a shelf-stacker)

Toodle pip.

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?