Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:53:39 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 16:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:27:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a
lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing
it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait
until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no
way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog
walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?

I take it you had some new age namby pamby driving test?

If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes.

I didn't, I meant a more modern version of the driving test - I've heard you watch a silly video and have to spot potential idiots (I mean hazards) on the road ahead.

But thanks for mentioning that you're one of those moronic wheel shufflers who feels the need for extra tuition.

--
"O'Ryan," asked the druggist, "did that mudpack I gave you improve your wife's appearance?"
"It did, surely," replied O'Ryan, "but it keeps fallin' off!"

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:55:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 16:45, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:30:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a
lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing
it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:

If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes.


You are a car spotter, that explains a lot.

Too each his own, I guess.

Sitting on motorway bridges wearing an anorak with a thermos and sandwiches for hours in the rain just to see a rare 1973 Ford Escort is not my idea of fun.

On 26/04/2015 17:15, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:

If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes.


You are a car spotter, that explains a lot.

Too each his own, I guess.

Sitting on motorway bridges wearing an anorak with a thermos and sandwiches for hours in the rain just to see a rare 1973 Ford Escort is not my idea of fun.

What on earth are you on about?

Are you sniffing illegal substances?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 26/04/2015 17:17, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 17:15, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:

If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes.

You are a car spotter, that explains a lot.
Too each his own, I guess.
Sitting on motorway bridges wearing an anorak with a thermos and
sandwiches for hours in the rain just to see a rare 1973 Ford Escort
is not my idea of fun.

What on earth are you on about?
Are you sniffing illegal substances?

You misunderstand him.

He means that there are still lots of "L" 1973 Escorts (I used to have
on, BTW).

He prefers to sit there until he sees an F (suffix) Reg Escort because
they're so much rarer.

That's all.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 9:22:50 AM UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
"Simon Jester" wrote in message

You still need to cite an official definition for this 'word'.

This seems to sum you up fairly nicely\;

http://definithing.com/psycholist/


Still not an official definition and I do none of those things.


Some are born to greatness. Others, like yourself, are born to be just
cyclists.

I am happy to be just a cyclist and a THINKER.

'Don't try and be a great man just try to be a man and let history decide."
Zefram Cochran

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 5:17:26 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 17:15, Simon Jester wrote:


You are a car spotter, that explains a lot.
Too each his own, I guess.
Sitting on motorway bridges wearing an anorak with a thermos and sandwiches for hours in the rain just to see a rare 1973 Ford Escort is not my idea of fun.

What on earth are you on about?

What advanced driving qualification do you have?

Let me guess, you were in the SAS but you can't talk about it.

On 26/04/2015 16:27, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no
way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?


A Russian !?

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:47:33 +0100, Ronnie wrote:

On 26/04/2015 16:27, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no
way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?

A Russian !?

I was near Downing Street and was attempting to repel David Cameron the capitalist *******.

--
My memory sucks, so I changed my computer password to incorrect. That way if I forget it, it tells me "your password is incorrect".

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:27:22 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:


When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?


I took my driving test in 1984.
We didn't have power steering or anti-thought brakes.