An apology

On Nov 14, 5:50*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek *wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?

On Nov 14, 7:38*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:





On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek * *wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?

Because I don't want to be involved in someone elses death wish. Or
do you actually think that he was being stupid and that his lack of
lights on a dark wet night was indefensible?

On 14/11/2011 19:38, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?


Unlit cyclists at night deserve to be wiped out. Who would ever defend
them? They are idiots.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 14/11/2011 19:45, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:





On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?

Because I don't want to be involved in someone elses death wish. Or
do you actually think that he was being stupid and that his lack of
lights on a dark wet night was indefensible?

Whoever you are, you are being an idiot. You are about as good at
trolling as Dave and Judith/JMS and they are both complete failures.

Only idiots ride without lights.



--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 14/11/2011 19:45, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:





On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?

Because I don't want to be involved in someone elses death wish. Or
do you actually think that he was being stupid and that his lack of
lights on a dark wet night was indefensible?

No...

Why are you surprised?

On 14/11/2011 20:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:45, Derek C wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:30, Derek C wrote:





On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 04:43, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Typical numbnuts diversionary tactic.

Do you have any comment to make about the illegal bicyclist?

--
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

I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have
defended the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to
himself and other road users!

Why?

Because I don't want to be involved in someone elses death wish. Or
do you actually think that he was being stupid and that his lack of
lights on a dark wet night was indefensible?

Whoever you are, you are being an idiot. You are about as good at trolling as
Dave and Judith/JMS and they are both complete failures.

Only idiots ride without lights.

There are a fair few of them about, you have to admit.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:50:04 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

On Nov 14, 4:53 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:56:42 -0000, Judith
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:43:17 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason

wrote:

On Nov 14, 1:09 am, Derek C wrote:
Could I please apologise to the cyclist I cut up with my car at a
roundabout near the Watford Industrial Estate the other evening.
However if he had had any lights on his bike, I would have seen him a
lot sooner and could have given way to him!

Like this driver you mean?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numpty.wmv

Yawn - that's the umpteenth time you have shown us that.

Broken your glasses have you?

He likes to exaggerate how many times he has problems. So far I've only
seen two examples. The first one didn't look like a problem to me (there
was plenty of room), and the second one there is no proof that Simon
indicated right.


My sunglasses do not film events sideways on like my outstretched right
hand.


**** me - his outstretched right hand films events now.

You couldn't make it up.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:21:08 +0000, Judith wrote:




**** me -

No thanks.
Try the vorephilic dave.






--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:30:30 -0800, Derek C wrote:



I am surprised that none of the pyscholists on this forum have defended
the unlit cyclist at night, despite being a hazard both to himself and
other road users!

I am not.
Being invisible is just damn' stupid.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.