"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"

[MrCheerful]

cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15475753.Man_fined_for_cycling_the_wrong_way_down_York_street/

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
> cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!
>
> http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15475753.Man_fined_for_cycling_the_wrong_way_down_York_street/
>

Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling", rather
than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

[JNugent]

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one way
street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be up
on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.


[* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist". The
correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a motorbike.]

[TMS320]

On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
>>> cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!
>>>
>>> http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15475753.Man_fined_for_cycling_the_wrong_way_down_York_street/
>>>
>>
>> Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling",
>> rather than "cyclist".
>>
>> Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.
>
> No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one way
> street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

> Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
> would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be up
> on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get from
a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

> [* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist". The
> correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a motorbike.]

I rarely use the term "motorist". Look up the history. Oh, you don't
keep any. A bicycle or horse is also controlled by a rider.

[JNugent]

On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
> On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>> cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15475753.Man_fined_for_cycling_the_wrong_way_down_York_street/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling",
>>> rather than "cyclist".
>>>
>>> Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.
>>
>> No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
>> way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.
>
> Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
> sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an offence.

>> Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
>> would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be
>> up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

> So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get from
> a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
all be there.

>> [* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist".
>> The correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a
>> motorbike.]

> I rarely use the term "motorist". Look up the history. Oh, you don't
> keep any. A bicycle or horse is also controlled by a rider.

"Motorist" is such an oddly old-fashioned term, harking back to a time
when cars were the preserve of the aristocracy and men with handlebar
moustaches and cravats.

No-one normal ever uses the word outside the world of the press cub
reporter and sub-editor.

[TMS320]

On 17/08/17 12:23, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:

>>>> Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.
>>>
>>> No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
>>> way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.
>>
>> Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
>> sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.
>
> He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an offence.

Sigh.

>>> Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a
>>> cyclist* would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky
>>> not to be up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.
>
>> So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get
>> from a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.
>
> Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
> all be there.

A few times a year the press tells us about some nasty "cyclist",
therefore it must be universal.

So you don't have an answer.

[JNugent]

There've been plenty of revelations from posters here. Artices in the
pres reinforce what they say, but are not the whole of it.

> So you don't have an answer.

...to?

[TMS320]

It's mostly mutial masturbation.

> Artices in the
> pres reinforce what they say, but are not the whole of it.

My offer to go walking with you still stands. You can't be afraid to
prove it, surely?