info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Who is to blame Cyclist or Taxi Driver? ( I dont like either)
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Nov 27, 2015, 8:40:03 AM11/27/15
to
Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
> >> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
> >> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>> apply to them.
> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
> pavement and cycle on that.
And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
Amazing that, isn't it?
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Most people are unable to write because they are unable to think, and
they are unable to think because they congenitally lack the equipment
to do so, just as they congenitally lack the equipment to fly over the
moon'
(H.L. Mencken)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
> >> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
> >> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>> apply to them.
> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
> pavement and cycle on that.
And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
Amazing that, isn't it?
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Most people are unable to write because they are unable to think, and
they are unable to think because they congenitally lack the equipment
to do so, just as they congenitally lack the equipment to fly over the
moon'
(H.L. Mencken)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Fredxxx
Nov 27, 2015, 9:17:56 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 13:38, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>
>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>
>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>> apply to them.
>
>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>> pavement and cycle on that.
>
> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
>
> Amazing that, isn't it?
It is given that over 1,000 times as many miles are driven in cars as
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>
>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>
>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>> apply to them.
>
>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>> pavement and cycle on that.
>
> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
>
> Amazing that, isn't it?
they are cycled, it does suggest cyclist have a disproportionate
propensity to kill pedestrians.
Judith
Nov 27, 2015, 9:34:22 AM11/27/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:43:13 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:39:02 UTC, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGSWcSfK_U
>>
>> I am surprised that the taxi driver indicated.
>> No surprise seeing a cycling undertaking.
>
>HC 151: "In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists + motorcyclists who may be passing on either side."
Rule 72
When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in
front of you, out of or into the side road.
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should only overtake on
the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room
to do so
Typical psycholist: pick and chose which parts of the HC you wish to follow
wrote:
>On Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:39:02 UTC, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGSWcSfK_U
>>
>> I am surprised that the taxi driver indicated.
>> No surprise seeing a cycling undertaking.
>
>HC 151: "In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists + motorcyclists who may be passing on either side."
Rule 72
When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in
front of you, out of or into the side road.
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should only overtake on
the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room
to do so
Typical psycholist: pick and chose which parts of the HC you wish to follow
Judith
Nov 27, 2015, 9:36:47 AM11/27/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:15:58 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>driver should have been doubly alert.
So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume another will
be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
If he did that he would have no time to do anything else.
>Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>driver should have been doubly alert.
So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume another will
be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
If he did that he would have no time to do anything else.
John Smith
Nov 27, 2015, 9:38:02 AM11/27/15
to
deaths, absolute numbers matter more than 'per billion miles' or whatever
other shit you care to dream up.
Y.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Anon)
Cycle-Ops
Nov 27, 2015, 11:59:35 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 13:38, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>
>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>
>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>> apply to them.
>
>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>> pavement and cycle on that.
>
> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
Cyclists only account for 1% of journeys, halfwit.
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>
>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>
>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>> apply to them.
>
>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>> pavement and cycle on that.
>
> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 27, 2015, 12:05:09 PM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 14:38, John Smith wrote:
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 13:38, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
>>> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>>>
>>>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>>>> apply to them.
>>>
>>>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>>>> pavement and cycle on that.
>>>
>>> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
>>> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
>>>
>>> Amazing that, isn't it?
>>
>> It is given that over 1,000 times as many miles are driven in cars as
>> they are cycled, it does suggest cyclist have a disproportionate
>> propensity to kill pedestrians.
>
> This one has been done to death over on uk.rec.cycling. When it comes to
> deaths, absolute numbers matter more than 'per billion miles' or whatever
> other shit you care to dream up.
"When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
> Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 13:38, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
>>> Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote
>>>
>>>>>> What, you mean like the psychopaths in cars who run red lights at a
>>>>>> rate up to four times that of cyclists (IAM, DfT and ROSPA)?
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that is the case in some places, but certainly not around here
>>>>> where cyclists seem to believe they are invulnerable and laws do not
>>>>> apply to them.
>>>
>>>> You also forgot that some cyclists think it is appropriate to mount the
>>>> pavement and cycle on that.
>>>
>>> And yet almost three times as many pedestrians are killed by cars on the
>>> pavement, than by cyclists on the pavement.
>>>
>>> Amazing that, isn't it?
>>
>> It is given that over 1,000 times as many miles are driven in cars as
>> they are cycled, it does suggest cyclist have a disproportionate
>> propensity to kill pedestrians.
>
> This one has been done to death over on uk.rec.cycling. When it comes to
> deaths, absolute numbers matter more than 'per billion miles' or whatever
> other shit you care to dream up.
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers."
Nick
Nov 27, 2015, 1:09:49 PM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 14:36, Judith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:15:58 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>> driver should have been doubly alert.
>
> So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume another will
> be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
He should realise his original mistake in not checking properly, stop
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:15:58 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>> driver should have been doubly alert.
>
> So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume another will
> be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
and check his mirrors before continuing.
The only thing I'm not sure of is if he had enough time to react to the
first cyclist.
>
> If he did that he would have no time to do anything else.
>
driving at all.
Judith
Nov 27, 2015, 1:52:51 PM11/27/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:39:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, 26 November 2015 16:30:12 UTC, Jeff wrote:
>> On 26/11/2015 15:54, Simon Mason wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 26 November 2015 15:33:24 UTC, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>> >> When have cyclists been allowed to undertake?
>> >
>> > There is no law that says it is illegal to overtake a car on its inside.
>> > There is a rule for drivers to watch out for this and check their nearside door mirror before moving to the left.
>>
>> Particularly the bit in rule 72 which says:"*Do not* ride on the inside
>> of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left". Which the cyclist
>> in this incident clearly did.
>
>The driver only signalled at the last minute, he should have done it well before the junction to give the cyclist a sporting chance.
"Sporting chance"? - I'm sorry - it wasn't a race - despite what the cyclist
thought.
I bet he lost more than the 3.7secs he was trying to shave off his best time to
work.
wrote:
>On Thursday, 26 November 2015 16:30:12 UTC, Jeff wrote:
>> On 26/11/2015 15:54, Simon Mason wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 26 November 2015 15:33:24 UTC, Richard McKenzie wrote:
>> >> When have cyclists been allowed to undertake?
>> >
>> > There is no law that says it is illegal to overtake a car on its inside.
>> > There is a rule for drivers to watch out for this and check their nearside door mirror before moving to the left.
>> >
>> > 151: In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists + motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Equally rules 72 and 73 for cyclists should be looked at!!!
>> > 151: In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists + motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Particularly the bit in rule 72 which says:"*Do not* ride on the inside
>> of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left". Which the cyclist
>> in this incident clearly did.
>
>The driver only signalled at the last minute, he should have done it well before the junction to give the cyclist a sporting chance.
"Sporting chance"? - I'm sorry - it wasn't a race - despite what the cyclist
thought.
I bet he lost more than the 3.7secs he was trying to shave off his best time to
work.
Judith
Nov 27, 2015, 2:10:22 PM11/27/15
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>driving at all.
He has taken a test and passed it.
Has the cyclist do you know?
<snip>
>If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>driving at all.
Has the cyclist do you know?
Fredxxx
Nov 27, 2015, 2:17:11 PM11/27/15
to
should also have mirrors?
Perhaps bikes should have compulsory MOTs to check if the brakes work?
Mr Pounder Esquire
Nov 27, 2015, 2:47:06 PM11/27/15
to
not looking like a bellend.
I bet that many of the cyclists here would not get 100%
But of course they would never admit it.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/quiz-could-you-pass-cycling-7315073
Mr Pounder Esquire
Nov 27, 2015, 2:48:09 PM11/27/15
to
Mrcheerful
Nov 27, 2015, 2:55:38 PM11/27/15
to
Fredxxx
Nov 27, 2015, 4:21:17 PM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 19:47, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent
Nov 27, 2015, 6:33:32 PM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 19:17, Fredxxx wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 18:09, Nick wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 14:36, Judith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:15:58 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>>>> driver should have been doubly alert.
>>>
>>> So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume
>>> another will
>>> be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
>>
>> He should realise his original mistake in not checking properly, stop
>> and check his mirrors before continuing.
>>
>> The only thing I'm not sure of is if he had enough time to react to the
>> first cyclist.
>>
>>>
>>> If he did that he would have no time to do anything else.
>>>
>>
>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>> driving at all.
>
> If a cyclist can see ahead then he shouldn't be cycling.
Absolutely.
> On 27/11/2015 18:09, Nick wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 14:36, Judith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:15:58 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Additionally having just had another cyclist pass on the left the taxi
>>>> driver should have been doubly alert.
>>>
>>> So he has seen one cyclist riding dangerously, so he should assume
>>> another will
>>> be along shortly to carry out the same manoeuvre?
>>
>> He should realise his original mistake in not checking properly, stop
>> and check his mirrors before continuing.
>>
>> The only thing I'm not sure of is if he had enough time to react to the
>> first cyclist.
>>
>>>
>>> If he did that he would have no time to do anything else.
>>>
>>
>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>> driving at all.
>
> If a cyclist can see ahead then he shouldn't be cycling.
Everyone knows that the correct way to ride a bicycle is to stare at the
ground immediately beneath you and to totally ignore anything you are
cycling towards.
The proof: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA>
Mike Swift
Nov 27, 2015, 7:27:02 PM11/27/15
to
In article <n3aa37$rv1$1...@dont-email.me>, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com>
writes
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
writes
>Perhaps bikes should have compulsory MOTs to check if the brakes work?
Or a medical certificate to say the brain works.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Cycle-Ops
Nov 27, 2015, 7:39:13 PM11/27/15
to
On 28/11/2015 00:19, Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <n3aa37$rv1$1...@dont-email.me>, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> writes
>> Perhaps bikes should have compulsory MOTs to check if the brakes work?
>
> Or a medical certificate to say the brain works.
>
> Mike
>
That would be a 100% fail.
> In article <n3aa37$rv1$1...@dont-email.me>, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> writes
>> Perhaps bikes should have compulsory MOTs to check if the brakes work?
>
> Or a medical certificate to say the brain works.
>
> Mike
>
--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.
Nick
Nov 28, 2015, 7:01:44 AM11/28/15
to
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
they are different. Hence different rules are required. This suggestion
is similar to arguing that a domestic roof top solar power generator
should be subjected to all the same rules and checks as a nuclear power
station.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
Mrcheerful
Nov 28, 2015, 7:22:24 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>>> driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>>> driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles. As much
of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now appropriate
that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.
JNugent
Nov 28, 2015, 7:25:06 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>>> driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
Have you read the Highway Code, particularly the bits which are stated
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't be
>>> driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
to apply to all vehicles?
Alycidon
Nov 28, 2015, 7:35:25 AM11/28/15
to
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:
>
> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
> cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.
>
> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
> cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
John Smith
Nov 28, 2015, 7:48:03 AM11/28/15
to
In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>> be driving at all.
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
It's standard victim-blaming.
> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>> be driving at all.
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
'Cars kill almost two thousand people a year and injure almost a million
more, whereas bikes kill two people a year and injure a few thousand. I
know! Let's insist that they both be subject to the same safeguards!'
Common sense doesn't appear to have percolated down to the psychotic cunts
who drive cars.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 7:48:08 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
Since they both use the same roads, that seems reasonable.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>
> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
> Clearly
> they are different.
Indeed they are. Motor vehicles are a viable form of transport and
bicycles are children's toys.
> Hence different rules are required. This suggestion
> is similar to arguing that a domestic roof top solar power generator
> should be subjected to all the same rules and checks as a nuclear power
> station.
>
> "With great power comes great responsibility."
"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words:
> "With great power comes great responsibility."
"With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my
curse. Who am I? I'm Spider-man."
Cyclists need to take responsibility for their own safety.
>
> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test.
> I remember the
> cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 7:52:21 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>>
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>
> It's standard victim-blaming.
>
> 'Cars kill almost two thousand people a year
1700 Or 0.3% of deaths, halfwit.
> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>>
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>
> It's standard victim-blaming.
>
> 'Cars kill almost two thousand people a year
> and injure almost a million
> more,
> whereas bikes kill two people a year and injure a few thousand. I
> know! Let's insist that they both be subject to the same safeguards!'
>
> Common sense doesn't appear to have percolated down to the psychotic cunts
> who drive cars.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 7:53:34 AM11/28/15
to
similar.
John Smith
Nov 28, 2015, 7:54:04 AM11/28/15
to
In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
>> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and get to
> On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
>> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).
Can you guess, you stupid twat? Would you like to take a guess, you stupid
twat?
That's right, you stupid twat.. it's because a lorry has far greater
potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy). And bus
drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.
You still think that all road users should be subject to the same rules,
despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?
You stupid twat.
> As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
> appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.
insurance, and have to wear a number on the back of the hi-viz.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 8:04:18 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>> be driving at all.
>
>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>
>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
>>> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
>
>> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
>> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
>
> I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and get to
> drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
> drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
> lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
> years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
> tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).
I wonder why cyclists don't pass any kind of test? Since they injure as
> In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>> be driving at all.
>
>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>
>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
>>> they are different. Hence different rules are required.
>
>> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
>> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
>
> I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and get to
> drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
> drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
> lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
> years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
> tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).
many people as cars do and have an incredibly high accident rate themselves.
>
> Can you guess, you stupid twat? Would you like to take a guess, you stupid
> twat?
>
> That's right, you stupid twat.. it's because a lorry has far greater
> potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy). And bus
> drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.
>
> You still think that all road users should be subject to the same rules,
> despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?
>
> You stupid twat.
>
>> As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
>> appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.
>
> Only if cyclists also get forced to wear hi-viz, have compulsory
> Can you guess, you stupid twat? Would you like to take a guess, you stupid
> twat?
>
> That's right, you stupid twat.. it's because a lorry has far greater
> potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy). And bus
> drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.
>
> You still think that all road users should be subject to the same rules,
> despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?
>
> You stupid twat.
>
>> As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
>> appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.
>
> insurance, and have to wear a number on the back of the hi-viz.
>
IFYPFY
>
JNugent
Nov 28, 2015, 8:25:41 AM11/28/15
to
sighting of it on the horizon conveys an accurate message.
My suggestion:
Police and other emergency services: Blue Hi-Viz
Roadworkers and maintenance: Green Hi-Viz
Breakdown services: Yellow Hi-Viz
General road-users (pedestrians, civilian car-occupants whilst out of
vehicle on motorways, etc): Orange Hi-Viz
Cyclists & groups of children (and their supervising adults): Pink
Hi-Viz.
<http://www.kidshivis.co.uk/2-kids-hi-vis-vests?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMqKMSO840wqv9rYkPBEkzOWn8jylB7x0DQfdb0_Pp54aAn3d8P8HAQ>
Nick
Nov 28, 2015, 8:33:43 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>>
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>
> It's standard victim-blaming.
They'll need to do better with their logic.
>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>> be driving at all.
>>>
>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>
>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>
> It's standard victim-blaming.
They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
between universal quantification and existential quantification.
Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 8:36:08 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
complicated to drive properly.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 8:38:17 AM11/28/15
to
I love it when cyclists try to be clever....
Bod
Nov 28, 2015, 9:04:49 AM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
--
Bod
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tom Crispin
Nov 28, 2015, 9:18:05 AM11/28/15
to
JNugent
Nov 28, 2015, 9:53:53 AM11/28/15
to
I'm glad to see that you accept the proposition in principle.
Alycidon
Nov 28, 2015, 9:58:14 AM11/28/15
to
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 14:18:05 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
> Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.
And of course it is mandatory in many countries for car occupants to have hi-vis to hand INSIDE the car in case they break down on a motorway. There are heavy fines for non compliance.
> Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 10:02:51 AM11/28/15
to
John Smith
Nov 28, 2015, 2:18:03 PM11/28/15
to
In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
>> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>> be driving at all.
>>>>
>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>
>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>>
>> It's standard victim-blaming.
> They'll need to do better with their logic.
They drive cars. Logic doesn't come into it.
> On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
>> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>> be driving at all.
>>>>
>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>
>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>
>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>>
>> It's standard victim-blaming.
> They'll need to do better with their logic.
> They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
> between universal quantification and existential quantification.
between their left and their right hand except when it comes to 'feeling
bigger' when they go for the left.
> Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.
their 'mind'.
Simon Jester
Nov 28, 2015, 3:00:02 PM11/28/15
to
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:22:24 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
So you think cars should be restricted to 56mph like LGV's.
> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
Motorists will also have to keep logbooks and have restricted driving hours.
Current bridges with a weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for example will no longer permit cars to drive over them.
Cars will no longer be allowed in lane 3 of motorways.
Cyclists can use motorways.
Maybe you should think before you post.
John Smith
Nov 28, 2015, 3:02:03 PM11/28/15
to
> Maybe you should think before you post.
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 3:28:58 PM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 20:00, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:22:24 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
>> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
>
> So you think cars should be restricted to 56mph like LGV's.
No.
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:22:24 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
>> irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.
>
> So you think cars should be restricted to 56mph like LGV's.
> Motorists will also have to keep logbooks and have restricted driving hours.
No.
> Current bridges with a weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for example will no longer permit cars to drive over them.
No.
> Cars will no longer be allowed in lane 3 of motorways.
No.
> Cyclists can use motorways.
No.
>
> Maybe you should think before you post.
>
Maybe you shouldn't be so thick.
> Maybe you should think before you post.
>
Cycle-Ops
Nov 28, 2015, 3:30:46 PM11/28/15
to
On 28/11/2015 19:16, John Smith wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
>>> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>>> be driving at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>>
>>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>>>
>>> It's standard victim-blaming.
>
>> They'll need to do better with their logic.
>
> They drive cars. Logic doesn't come into it.
Said by someone who rides a child's toy. Ha ha ha ha!
> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
>>> In uk.rec.cycling Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
>>>>>> be driving at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>>>
>>>> There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
>>>> same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.
>>>
>>> It's standard victim-blaming.
>
>> They'll need to do better with their logic.
>
> They drive cars. Logic doesn't come into it.
>
>> They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
>> between universal quantification and existential quantification.
>
> News flash, dude: car drivers have difficulty understanding the difference
> between their left and their right hand except when it comes to 'feeling
> bigger' when they go for the left.
>
>> Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.
>
> I find a D-lock across the cheekbone helps to concentrate what passes for
> their 'mind'.
>
What a wanker. All mouth, no trousers.
>> They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
>> between universal quantification and existential quantification.
>
> News flash, dude: car drivers have difficulty understanding the difference
> between their left and their right hand except when it comes to 'feeling
> bigger' when they go for the left.
>
>> Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.
>
> I find a D-lock across the cheekbone helps to concentrate what passes for
> their 'mind'.
>
Judith
Nov 28, 2015, 6:50:27 PM11/28/15
to
but I understands some people just ignore such laws.
Judith
Nov 28, 2015, 6:51:53 PM11/28/15
to
complying with the various applicable laws.
Judith
Nov 28, 2015, 6:54:01 PM11/28/15
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:04:49 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
>>> cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
>>
>> I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.
>>
>I never had a driving lesson either.
Amazing: two of the biggest liars here never had a single driving lesson.
>On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
>>> cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
>>
>> I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.
>>
>I never had a driving lesson either.
We would never have believe it.
However, you probably never had a test did you: I understand that they were not
obligatory quite a few years ago.
Rob Morley
Nov 29, 2015, 1:21:43 AM11/29/15
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:04:49 +0000
Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember
> >> the cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
> >
> > I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.
> >
> I never had a driving lesson either.
>
I never had a /driving/ lesson - I did have a few "pass the test"
> On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember
> >> the cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.
> >
> > I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.
> >
> I never had a driving lesson either.
>
lessons.
Alycidon
Nov 29, 2015, 9:29:24 AM11/29/15
to
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 14:18:05 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
> Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.
The police were caught out here, but luckily a cyclist was there to help out.
http://road.cc/content/news/172167-police-appeal-find-cyclist-who-helped-them-out-jam
Judith
Nov 29, 2015, 9:48:29 AM11/29/15
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:47:55 -0000, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>Judith wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:39:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>> <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 16:30:12 UTC, Jeff wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2015 15:54, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 15:33:24 UTC, Richard McKenzie
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> When have cyclists been allowed to undertake?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no law that says it is illegal to overtake a car on its
>>>>> inside.
>>>>> There is a rule for drivers to watch out for this and check their
>>>>> nearside door mirror before moving to the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> 151: In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists +
>>>>> motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Equally rules 72 and 73 for cyclists should be looked at!!!
>>>>
>>>> Particularly the bit in rule 72 which says:"*Do not* ride on the
>>>> inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left". Which
>>>> the cyclist in this incident clearly did.
>>>
>>> The driver only signalled at the last minute, he should have done it
>>> well before the junction to give the cyclist a sporting chance.
>>
>>
>> "Sporting chance"? - I'm sorry - it wasn't a race - despite what the
>> cyclist thought.
>>
>> I bet he lost more than the 3.7secs he was trying to shave off his
>> best time to work.
>
>"Work"?
>
Sorry - my mistake - I forgot.
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>Judith wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:39:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>> <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 16:30:12 UTC, Jeff wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2015 15:54, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 26 November 2015 15:33:24 UTC, Richard McKenzie
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> When have cyclists been allowed to undertake?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no law that says it is illegal to overtake a car on its
>>>>> inside.
>>>>> There is a rule for drivers to watch out for this and check their
>>>>> nearside door mirror before moving to the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> 151: In slow-moving traffic. You should be aware of cyclists +
>>>>> motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Equally rules 72 and 73 for cyclists should be looked at!!!
>>>>
>>>> Particularly the bit in rule 72 which says:"*Do not* ride on the
>>>> inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left". Which
>>>> the cyclist in this incident clearly did.
>>>
>>> The driver only signalled at the last minute, he should have done it
>>> well before the junction to give the cyclist a sporting chance.
>>
>>
>> "Sporting chance"? - I'm sorry - it wasn't a race - despite what the
>> cyclist thought.
>>
>> I bet he lost more than the 3.7secs he was trying to shave off his
>> best time to work.
>
>"Work"?
>
Sorry - my mistake - I forgot.
Judith
Nov 29, 2015, 9:51:51 AM11/29/15
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:46:52 -0000, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>not looking like a bellend.
>I bet that many of the cyclists here would not get 100%
>But of course they would never admit it.
>
>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/quiz-could-you-pass-cycling-7315073
>
I think that one about when can you cycle through a red-traffic light is
incorrect.
I'm sure that I have been told differently in here.
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really
>>> shouldn't be driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>I got 100% and I would not be seen dead on a pedal bike. It's all to do with
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really
>>> shouldn't be driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>not looking like a bellend.
>I bet that many of the cyclists here would not get 100%
>But of course they would never admit it.
>
>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/quiz-could-you-pass-cycling-7315073
>
I think that one about when can you cycle through a red-traffic light is
incorrect.
I'm sure that I have been told differently in here.
Judith
Nov 29, 2015, 9:52:49 AM11/29/15
to
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:46:52 -0000, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really
>>> shouldn't be driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>I got 100% and I would not be seen dead on a pedal bike. It's all to do with
>not looking like a bellend.
>I bet that many of the cyclists here would not get 100%
>But of course they would never admit it.
>
>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/quiz-could-you-pass-cycling-7315073
>
I bet Mason got 110% and Crispin 105%.
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
>Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really
>>> shouldn't be driving at all.
>>
>>
>> He has taken a test and passed it.
>>
>> Has the cyclist do you know?
>
>I got 100% and I would not be seen dead on a pedal bike. It's all to do with
>not looking like a bellend.
>I bet that many of the cyclists here would not get 100%
>But of course they would never admit it.
>
>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/quiz-could-you-pass-cycling-7315073
>
Tom Crispin
Nov 29, 2015, 2:58:00 PM11/29/15
to
Cycle-Ops
Nov 29, 2015, 4:41:40 PM11/29/15
to
Judith
Nov 30, 2015, 8:48:06 AM11/30/15
to
Keep them coming - you are so good value you know.
0 new messages