Road rage bus driver faces jail for swerving in to cyclist

On Jan 8, 1:33*am, JNugent wrote:
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.

On 08/01/2012 13:10, Squashme wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:33 am, wrote:
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...


You can still tell a hawk from a handsaw, I hope?

One of them is very like a whale, I think.

On Jan 8, 1:17*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 08/01/2012 13:10, Squashme wrote:









On Jan 8, 1:33 am, *wrote:
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...

You can still tell a hawk from a handsaw, I hope?

One of them is very like a whale, I think.

Oh Lord, please do not attempt to drive near me!

How about "I can't tell the men from the women nowadays?"

On 08/01/2012 13:36, Squashme wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:17 pm, wrote:
On 08/01/2012 13:10, Squashme wrote:









On Jan 8, 1:33 am, wrote:
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...

You can still tell a hawk from a handsaw, I hope?

One of them is very like a whale, I think.

Oh Lord, please do not attempt to drive near me!

You do disappoint me. I really thought you'd get the reference.

There's always Google.

How about "I can't tell the men from the women nowadays?"

How about it?

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:02:48 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

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!!

Whatever tickles your fancy - but unless you want to have the ****
taken out of you (yet again) I suggest you keep your homo-erotic
fantasies to yourself.

On 07/01/2012 23:58, Roger Merriman wrote:
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.

I can appreciate that. I too am a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles.

- - - -
Autolycus.

On Jan 8, 1:48*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 08/01/2012 13:36, Squashme wrote:









On Jan 8, 1:17 pm, *wrote:
On 08/01/2012 13:10, Squashme wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:33 am, * *wrote:
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.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:02:48 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

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!!


I wonder - are there any photos of anyone we know suitably dressed up?

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:22:50 +0000, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:02:48 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

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!!

Whatever tickles your fancy - but unless you want to have the ****
taken out of you (yet again) I suggest you keep your homo-erotic
fantasies to yourself.


Why on earth are you introducing "homo-erotic" in to the conversation?

You really are one sad *******.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:01:46 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

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.....



Does he still cycle?

I thought that he was wheel-chair bound - having been hit by a car sometime
ago.

That's what makes him such a car hater and bitter and twisted.


But I will say this for him - he has a fine and sharply honed legal mind.