Cyclist terrorist

On 6 Oct, 18:58, Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Brian Robertson

') wrote:
Still no excuse for doing a lethal speed on a pavement. I personally
think that a charge at least equal to causing death by dangerous driving
should be used against cyclists in such circumstances.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you. It's more or less the same
offence.

As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on
people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing
through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on
bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and most of
those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights and
was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also
the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.

--
(Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement
frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which
puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of
traffic.

Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
to do is fit them and switch them on.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
PeterG wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...9520-19905795/


It can't possibly have happened. The "newspaper" must be imagining it.

Why do I say that?

Obviously, it's because we have been assured time and again that no
cyclist can possibly harm another road user.......

kindly post references.

Whilst this cyclist's behaviour is abhorrent and indefensible, your attitude
is unforgiveable.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
PeterG wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...9520-19905795/


"terrorist" - someone who engages in terrorism

"terrorism" - only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that
terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence

Whilst no-one can deny that this cyclist inflicted violence on another
person, and there is no excuse for that, have you considered that the
definition fits almost every motorised vehicle user much better than it fits
any cyclist? Which group inflicts more violence on others, cyclists or
drivers? and which therefore, more deserves the appelation "terrorist"?

Have you written similar threads in response to drivers who have killed
pedestrians on the pavement, or just to this one?

Final question: what's it like being a hypocrite?

Simon Brooke wrote:

As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on
people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing
through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on
bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and most of
those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights and
was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also
the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.

Well it's a message lost on many. I was out in Southampton yesterday and
saw the leader of a group of cyclists encouraging her group to use the
pavement, despite the number of pedestrians on the pavement, and despite
the absence of road traffic. And no it wasn't a dual-use pavement.

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea wrote:

Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement
frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which
puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of
traffic.

Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic?

It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the
streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone
for speeding -- stealth tax and all that.

So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious
on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at
speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves.

In message . com, Adam Lea
wrote:

Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
to do is fit them and switch them on.

I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.

burtthebike wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

PeterG wrote:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...9520-19905795/



"terrorist" - someone who engages in terrorism

"terrorism" - only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that
terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence

Whoosh!

Make no mistake: the comparison with terrorism (and not originally in
respect of cycling - far from it!) was made by someone else (and
before this thread was started) - certainly not be me.

Whilst no-one can deny that this cyclist inflicted violence on another
person, and there is no excuse for that, have you considered that the
definition fits almost every motorised vehicle user much better than it
fits any cyclist?

Go back to sleep. There's nothing to see here. Move along (and that
applies to the others who have posted from the hip).

Timothy Baldwin wrote:
In message . com, Adam Lea
wrote:


Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
to do is fit them and switch them on.


I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.

Shame on you for such a calumny.

Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do
such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.

On Oct 7, 12:20 am, "burtthebike"
wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

...

PeterG wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...ist-in-death-h...

"terrorist" - someone who engages in terrorism

"terrorism" - only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that
terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence

Whilst no-one can deny that this cyclist inflicted violence on another
person, and there is no excuse for that, have you considered that the
definition fits almost every motorised vehicle user much better than it fits
any cyclist? Which group inflicts more violence on others, cyclists or
drivers? and which therefore, more deserves the appelation "terrorist"?

Have you written similar threads in response to drivers who have killed
pedestrians on the pavement, or just to this one?

Final question: what's it like being a hypocrite?

Is it not amazing how some people miss the point by a mile (or more).
I suggest that you check this group posts for motorist terrorist, the
results you get may help you to see the reason for my post.
Until then just lurk, unless you are Doug in disguise.

By the way I, have I messed Dougs comments?

Peter

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Timothy Baldwin wrote:
In message . com, Adam
Lea
wrote:


Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
to do is fit them and switch them on.


I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.

Shame on you for such a calumny.

Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do such
a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.

Are you suggesting that using a hand held torch is somehow wrong or that you
would prefer that they use no light source at all?