Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:57:07 +0100, Simon Jester wrote:

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.

Have you got 4 brake pedals?

--
Did you know that dolphins are so intelligent that within only a few weeks of captivity, they can train humans to stand at the edge of the pool and throw them fish?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 26/04/2015 15:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:39:12 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

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:
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.

Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law
abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business,
looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no
warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for
dangerous
driving?

No.

You won't be able to do anything at all.

Very funny. Now could a nearby cop do you for dangerous driving?

What? Sitting at this computer in the spare bedroom?

What are you on?

why are you all typing to a complete prick?

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:15:56 +0100, 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.

Less harmful than fishing!

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

On 26/04/2015 17:42, Simon Jester wrote:
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.

Can't talk about either, all hush hush old chap.

But I can tell you I failed my Tufty Club Cycling Proficiency Test.



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

On 26/04/2015 17:35, Simon Jester wrote:
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.

Are you sure? Not telling porkies?


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.

You hide the latter extremely well. Nobody would have ever guessed.




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

On 26/04/2015 16:53, 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.



If you are a member of "the Institute of Advanced Drivers", they must be
proud to have you as a member.

On 26/04/2015 19:37, colwyn wrote:
On 26/04/2015 16:53, 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.



If you are a member of "the Institute of Advanced Drivers", they must be
proud to have you as a member.

With my enlightened views on cycling they might well be.



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

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 7:26:30 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 17:35, Simon Jester wrote:

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

You hide the latter extremely well. Nobody would have ever guessed.


Two Healthy Incomes No Kids Early Retirement.

Our high rate taxes pay for your kids education, sponging freeloader.

On 26/04/2015 19:47, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 7:26:30 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 17:35, Simon Jester wrote:

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

You hide the latter extremely well. Nobody would have ever guessed.


Two Healthy Incomes No Kids Early Retirement.

Our high rate taxes pay for your kids education, sponging freeloader.

Hmm, that makes two of us cyclists that retired early, I semi retired at
55 and fully at 60. Just in the process of booking a long holiday to
Australia next year :-)

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 5:20:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

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


I learned to drive in a 1972 Austin Maxi.
Few cars in those days had a 5 speed manual gearbox.
Does anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size still use manual gearboxes?