Cyclists say the funniest things

[Simon Jester]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c

0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it"

[Rob Morley]

He nearly died because he thought it was OK to ride into oncoming
traffic to get past queuing cars, but you expect him to be coherent?

[Simon Jester]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRqeDEQcYk

[fredal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:59:23 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GLTC5gbY7c
>
> 0.37 "You just knocked me off my bike you were lucky I stayed on it"

'I know 'ees in thur 'cos I saw 'im come out'

[TMS320]

Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. If you can't read the
junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem.

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:28:13 +0100
TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again.

No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling
out - I think that would be a driving test fail.

> If you can't read
> the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is
> *your* problem.

The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the
offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have
contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame
to the road user who changed direction without warning.

[TMS320]

On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote> TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again.
>
> No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling
> out - I think that would be a driving test fail.

If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also
be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions.

>> If you can't read
>> the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is
>> *your* problem.
>
> The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the
> offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have
> contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame
> to the road user who changed direction without warning.

Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law
court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up
in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another.
Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where
possible.

If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because
another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem.
Be careful about what you wish for.

[JNugent]

predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]."

Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian
crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or
not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice
obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches?

[TMS320]

When you have nothing to contribute, try resising the temptation to reply.

You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone
gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service.

[JNugent]

You think that pointing out how cyclists behave is "nothing", do you?

>
> You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone
> gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service.

That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things.

The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of
respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence.

It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again defended
that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general.

BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no
different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one
that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good".

[TMS320]

This thread has nothing to do with your obsession.

>> You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands
>> someone gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service.
>
> That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things.

I missed that. Please repeat.

> The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of
> respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence.
>
> It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again defended
> that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general.
>
> BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no
> different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one
> that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good".

Human law (if there is one for this - please advise) is the one that
*needs* to justify itself.

[JNugent]

I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read
posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG).

>> The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of
>> respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence.
>>
>> It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again
>> defended that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general.
>>
>> BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no
>> different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one
>> that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good".
>
> Human law (if there is one for this - please advise) is the one that
> *needs* to justify itself.

Translation:

"As I have already said on a number of occasions, the rules don't apply
to cyclists".

[TMS320]

On 15/08/17 14:56, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote:

>>> That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things.
>>
>> I missed that. Please repeat.
>
> I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read
> posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG).

So we have a partial explanation for your amnesia. It is possible to
recover by refreshing from the server, and to change your settings to
keep messages on your pc for (for instance) 30 days to reduce memory
loss in future. You then just hide read messages to reduce screen
clutter and unhide to to refer back. Also, so that you can remember what
you have written, to keep copies of what you sent in the sent folder.

Would you like instruction on this?

[JNugent]

No thanks.

I do remember that someone (maybe Mr Cheerful) chipped in with the
legislation which allows local authorities and/or the police to close a
highway. So you have been told.

But of course, as we all know, because you and others have advised us so
many times, those rules probably don't apply to cyclists.

In fact, it isn't at all clear that any rules apply to cyclists, is it?

[TMS320]

On 15/08/17 15:54, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/08/2017 15:22, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 15/08/17 14:56, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote:

>>>> I missed that. Please repeat.
>>>
>>> I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird,
>>> read posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG).

<...>

>> Would you like instruction on this?
>
> No thanks.

So when you forget things, don't complain about being treated like a
child and don't expect others to do your work for you.

> I do remember that someone (maybe Mr Cheerful) chipped in with the
> legislation which allows local authorities and/or the police to close a
> highway. So you have been told.

Indeed they can close a road. What about this law you mentioned about
walking a bike?

> But of course, as we all know, because you and others have advised us so
> many times, those rules probably don't apply to cyclists.
>
> In fact, it isn't at all clear that any rules apply to cyclists, is it?

When a policeman has waved me through a closed road, which of us should
be punished for breaking the rules?