Justice at last

mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

yawn So requiring that cyclists meet the same standards of road
behaviour as motorists is "double standards" in your Fantasy World? I
see you remain a ****ing joke, must be something to do with living in
WebFootLand.

I was merely pointing out how said cyclist was being treated as equally as
if he were driving a car.

No you weren't. A driver who ran into a child crossing the road, in the
care of their parent, would not be allowed away scot free.

Try not telling lies.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

yawn So requiring that cyclists meet the same standards of road
behaviour as motorists is "double standards" in your Fantasy World? I
see you remain a ****ing joke, must be something to do with living in
WebFootLand.

I was merely pointing out how said cyclist was being treated as equally
as
if he were driving a car.

No you weren't. A driver who ran into a child crossing the road, in the
care of their parent, would not be allowed away scot free.

Try not telling lies.

No? I know a driver who ran his car into a child and the police blamed the
child. He was off scot free.

Maybe things are different on PlanetFirth.

mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

yawn So requiring that cyclists meet the same standards of road
behaviour as motorists is "double standards" in your Fantasy World? I
see you remain a ****ing joke, must be something to do with living in
WebFootLand.

I was merely pointing out how said cyclist was being treated as equally
as
if he were driving a car.

No you weren't. A driver who ran into a child crossing the road, in the
care of their parent, would not be allowed away scot free.

Try not telling lies.

No? I know a driver who ran his car into a child and the police blamed the
child. He was off scot free.

Ah, excellent, pathetic made-up anecdote.

Maybe things are different on PlanetFirth.

Maybe in web-foot territory talking ******** is regarded as normal?

Steve Firth wrote:
mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

yawn So requiring that cyclists meet the same standards of road
behaviour as motorists is "double standards" in your Fantasy
World? I see you remain a ****ing joke, must be something to do
with living in WebFootLand.

I was merely pointing out how said cyclist was being treated as
equally as
if he were driving a car.

No you weren't. A driver who ran into a child crossing the road, in
the care of their parent, would not be allowed away scot free.

Try not telling lies.

No? I know a driver who ran his car into a child and the police
blamed the child. He was off scot free.

Ah, excellent, pathetic made-up anecdote.

He is rather prone to those.

Maybe things are different on PlanetFirth.

Maybe in web-foot territory talking ******** is regarded as normal?

Certainly the case in push bike land.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Steve Firth wrote:
mileburner wrote:


No? I know a driver who ran his car into a child and the police
blamed the child. He was off scot free.

Ah, excellent, pathetic made-up anecdote.

Where?

Maybe things are different on PlanetFirth.

Maybe in web-foot territory talking ******** is regarded as normal?

Probably :-)