Road rage bus driver faces jail for swerving in to cyclist

On Jan 7, 10:29*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/01/2012 22:15, Roger Merriman wrote:









*wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:19, Roger Merriman wrote:
* wrote:
On 06/01/2012 14:02, Nick wrote:
On 06/01/2012 11:23, NM wrote:
Only the poor use buses and only the poor use cycles so I see no
reason to become concerned.
Yep historically this used to be the case and I guess is the reason we
have laws that give so much favouritism to car drivers. However now cars
are so cheap that any pikey can have one and there is no reason for the
law to afford them the same respect that it once did for toff motorists.
Additionally (particularly around the city of London) we have seen the
rise of a new generation of affluent cyclist who are unwilling to doff
their caps to what they see as unreasonable laws (red lights, pavement
cycling etc).
We call them "chavs".
thats what city workers tend to be, chavs don't tend to work as lawers
and such.
Neither do lawyers tend to be cyclists.
that is not the impression if you see the Clubs. lawyers and media types
and such seem to be the rule.

Clubs are a different topic altogether. The discussion was about the chavs
who cycle along the footway, ignore traffic lights and ride the wrong way
around roundabouts and along one-way streets.

and central london cyclists bar boris bikes seem to be simular types.

Oh, to have that gift you have.

Oh, that police officers had it. They'd be able to recognise incognito
burglars and drug dealers on sight.

Not sure why you think they are "affluent".
people who can drop a few grand on a bike, don't tend to be poor.
But that is not necessary or even apparent. Neither is the occupation
(especially as lawyers) of cyclists usually the slightest bit apparent..
I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Not me. I can't even tell the difference (any more) between a Vauxhall and a
Renault. Everything looks the same nowadays.

"Everything looks the same nowadays."
Oh come on! That is blatant coat trailing.

JNugent wrote:

On 07/01/2012 22:15, Roger Merriman wrote:

wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:19, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On 06/01/2012 14:02, Nick wrote:
On 06/01/2012 11:23, NM wrote:

Only the poor use buses and only the poor use cycles so I see no
reason to become concerned.

Yep historically this used to be the case and I guess is the reason we
have laws that give so much favouritism to car drivers. However now cars
are so cheap that any pikey can have one and there is no reason for the
law to afford them the same respect that it once did for toff motorists.
Additionally (particularly around the city of London) we have seen the
rise of a new generation of affluent cyclist who are unwilling to doff
their caps to what they see as unreasonable laws (red lights, pavement
cycling etc).

We call them "chavs".

thats what city workers tend to be, chavs don't tend to work as lawers
and such.

Neither do lawyers tend to be cyclists.

that is not the impression if you see the Clubs. lawyers and media types
and such seem to be the rule.

Clubs are a different topic altogether. The discussion was about the chavs
who cycle along the footway, ignore traffic lights and ride the wrong way
around roundabouts and along one-way streets.

not quite my repy to was from this of you and nick

(quote)
Additionally (particularly around the city of London) we have seen the
rise of a new generation of affluent cyclist who are unwilling to doff
their caps to what they see as unreasonable laws (red lights, pavement
cycling etc).

We call them "chavs".

Not sure why you think they are "affluent".
(end quote)

they are far from chavs they are Mamils for most part see here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10965608

chavs don't tend be a feature of central london, think about it they
don't cycle far.

thats not to say central london traffic including bikes isn't awfull.
you name it some one will do it.


and central london cyclists bar boris bikes seem to be simular types.

Oh, to have that gift you have.

Oh, that police officers had it. They'd be able to recognise incognito
burglars and drug dealers on sight.

don't be daft it's just a sterotype clearly not foolproof but much like
one might deduce something of a man or woman by the car, you can by the
clothes and bike.

Not sure why you think they are "affluent".

people who can drop a few grand on a bike, don't tend to be poor.

But that is not necessary or even apparent. Neither is the occupation
(especially as lawyers) of cyclists usually the slightest bit apparent.

I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Not me. I can't even tell the difference (any more) between a Vauxhall and a
Renault. Everything looks the same nowadays.

I'm a watcher even things I have no intrest in I am aware of, or to put
it another way, full of useless information.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 07/01/2012 23:28, Squashme wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, wrote:
On 07/01/2012 22:15, Roger Merriman wrote:









wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:19, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On 06/01/2012 14:02, Nick wrote:
On 06/01/2012 11:23, NM wrote:
Only the poor use buses and only the poor use cycles so I see no
reason to become concerned.
Yep historically this used to be the case and I guess is the reason we
have laws that give so much favouritism to car drivers. However now cars
are so cheap that any pikey can have one and there is no reason for the
law to afford them the same respect that it once did for toff motorists.
Additionally (particularly around the city of London) we have seen the
rise of a new generation of affluent cyclist who are unwilling to doff
their caps to what they see as unreasonable laws (red lights, pavement
cycling etc).
We call them "chavs".
thats what city workers tend to be, chavs don't tend to work as lawers
and such.
Neither do lawyers tend to be cyclists.
that is not the impression if you see the Clubs. lawyers and media types
and such seem to be the rule.

Clubs are a different topic altogether. The discussion was about the chavs
who cycle along the footway, ignore traffic lights and ride the wrong way
around roundabouts and along one-way streets.

and central london cyclists bar boris bikes seem to be simular types.

Oh, to have that gift you have.

Oh, that police officers had it. They'd be able to recognise incognito
burglars and drug dealers on sight.

Not sure why you think they are "affluent".
people who can drop a few grand on a bike, don't tend to be poor.
But that is not necessary or even apparent. Neither is the occupation
(especially as lawyers) of cyclists usually the slightest bit apparent.
I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Not me. I can't even tell the difference (any more) between a Vauxhall and a
Renault. Everything looks the same nowadays.

"Everything looks the same nowadays."
Oh come on! That is blatant coat trailing.

shrug

It's true, though...

Roger Merriman wrote:

I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Well it's more likely that one of them will be wearing power ranger
lycra and look like a ****. Is that what you mean?

On Jan 7, 1:48 pm, The Revd wrote:


Not sure why you think they are "affluent".

people who can drop a few grand on a bike, don't tend to be poor.

They do tend to be stupid for doing so, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are simply wrong.
*Really* stupid people buy a new car and lose the equivalent of a 4000 quid
carbon bike as they drive it out of the showroom.
That is stupidity personified.

--
Simon Mason

Steve Firth wrote:

Roger Merriman wrote:

I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Well it's more likely that one of them will be wearing power ranger
lycra and look like a ****. Is that what you mean?

You could say that, well you did!

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 07/01/2012 22:15, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:

But that is not necessary or even apparent. Neither is the occupation
(especially as lawyers) of cyclists usually the slightest bit apparent.

I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

... and the bloke with an excluded middle.

On 07/01/2012 18:30, JNugent wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:19, Roger Merriman wrote:

wrote:
On 06/01/2012 14:02, Nick wrote:
On 06/01/2012 11:23, NM wrote:

Only the poor use buses and only the poor use cycles so I see no
reason to become concerned.

Yep historically this used to be the case and I guess is the reason we
have laws that give so much favouritism to car drivers. However now
cars
are so cheap that any pikey can have one and there is no reason for the
law to afford them the same respect that it once did for toff
motorists.
Additionally (particularly around the city of London) we have seen the
rise of a new generation of affluent cyclist who are unwilling to doff
their caps to what they see as unreasonable laws (red lights, pavement
cycling etc).

We call them "chavs".

thats what city workers tend to be, chavs don't tend to work as lawers
and such.

Neither do lawyers tend to be cyclists.

Except for M'Lud Lee.....




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/01/2012 03:29, Steve Firth wrote:
Roger wrote:

I'd though that even the unintrested would reconise the differnce
between the bloke on the supermarket MTB and the carbon roadie.

Well it's more likely that one of them will be wearing power ranger
lycra and look like a ****. Is that what you mean?

'Power Ranger Lycra'!

Oh I love it!!

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 03:42:55 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:48 pm, The Revd wrote:


Not sure why you think they are "affluent".

people who can drop a few grand on a bike, don't tend to be poor.

They do tend to be stupid for doing so, though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are simply wrong.
*Really* stupid people buy a new car and lose the equivalent of a 4000 quid
carbon bike as they drive it out of the showroom.
That is stupidity personified.

John Caudwell has two Bentleys but prefers his bike:
http://stuartfreedman.photoshelter.com/image/I0000v8eH_OrFIh4

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.