Cyclist terrorist

On 7 Oct, 10:40, Brian Robertson wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson wrote:
Marc Brett wrote:
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.
Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
was driving unsafely.

Brian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Remind us who got hurt?

His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now
that is SO funny.

Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone
who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident
for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving
imbicile.

Brian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

its "nonsense" and "imbecile"

On 7 Oct, 10:52, Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 10:38, Brian Robertson wrote:





Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 02:04, JNugent
wrote:
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.

its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do
whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet
they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are
completly beyond reproach.
OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay
for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the
devil incarnate.

Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting
that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of
them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers,
you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your
journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a
clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like
you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm
only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the
arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of
your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.

Brian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've missed the point, I actually agree with your last two
sentences, but
the attitudes displayed by Chapman, Hansen , that ****** Spindrift et
al are exactly that car drivers are the cyclists enemy and that
cyclists have carte blanche to do whatever they like. Even when
someone is killed by a cyclist, it somehow doesn't matter so much
because car drivers are responsible for the deaths of more people than
cyclists are.

As for tax- car drivers make a massive contribution to the Exchequer
and subsidise the entire economy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 10:40, Brian Robertson wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson wrote:
Marc Brett wrote:
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.
Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
was driving unsafely.
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Remind us who got hurt?
His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now
that is SO funny.

Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone
who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident
for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving
imbicile.

Brian.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

its "nonsense" and "imbecile"


I trust you to know how to spell those words, I really do.

Brian.

Brimstone wrote:
"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?

I cannot possibly accept that any cyclist would ever do such a thing.
They are absolute boy scouts - always prepared.

The benighted poster who claims to have seen such a thing must simply
be mistaken. OTOH, I expect that several hundred thousand car-drivers
are so cavalier about road safety that they drive around in the dark
using a penlight for forward illumination, on at least three bald
tyres which are so defective that [cont on p.267]

In message , Brian Robertson
writes
Lights on bikes are a thorny issue, in my opinion. Certainly, not using
lights in working order should be a good reason to earn yourself a £60
spot fine, but who is going to enforce it? Yet more bobbies off the
beat filling out paperwork?

Apparently dog wardens can enforce the law on lorry drivers smoking in
their own cabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7025671.stm

There's plenty of work being created for jumped-up ticket dispensers
like that. Don't expect them to jump in and save your drowning kid
though.


--
Roadhog

Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Would that someone be a mum out cycling with her kids?

Roadhog wrote:
In message , Brian Robertson
writes
Lights on bikes are a thorny issue, in my opinion. Certainly, not
using lights in working order should be a good reason to earn yourself
a £60 spot fine, but who is going to enforce it? Yet more bobbies off
the beat filling out paperwork?

Apparently dog wardens can enforce the law on lorry drivers smoking in
their own cabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7025671.stm

There's plenty of work being created for jumped-up ticket dispensers
like that. Don't expect them to jump in and save your drowning kid though.



Not if they can't swim and don't know where he is.

So lets get this right, anyway: You think that cyclists should obey the
law, but the people who enforce the law are "jumped-up ticket
dispensers". Have I got you right?

Brian.

Nick wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Would that someone be a mum out cycling with her kids?

They aren't driving a car and they aren't related to Steve. Worse still,
they aren't Steve. Ergo, they are scum and in the wrong.

Brian.

Brian Robertson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

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.


How would you even be able to recognise a duel use pavement? You think
that the Tour de France could be run on £60 mountain bikes from Costco.
I would say that somebody as plain THICK as you have nothing to
contribute to a thread about cycling.

Brian.

Your unintentional "humour" is getting better every day.

"Duel use" - I love it!

Many a true word is spoken in jest. Or, in Brian's case, inadvertently.

JNugent wrote:
Brian Robertson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

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.


How would you even be able to recognise a duel use pavement? You think
that the Tour de France could be run on £60 mountain bikes from
Costco. I would say that somebody as plain THICK as you have nothing
to contribute to a thread about cycling.

Brian.

Your unintentional "humour" is getting better every day.

"Duel use" - I love it!

Many a true word is spoken in jest. Or, in Brian's case, inadvertently.

Actually you aren't wrong there. As I have said elsewhere, I don't like
them. I use them and mind my own business, but there are always
pedestrian terrorists walking in front of me. (Thought it was time to
introduce another class of terrorists)

Brian.