Video of taxi trying to ram Critical Mass.
Doug
weapon to intimidate cyclists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".
Brimstone
> Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
> weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
So where was this vehicle being used to intimidate Doug? I saw lots of
evidence of cyclists deliberately obstructing the highway rather than
processing.
As always, your evidence condemns you and your fellows considerably more
than it does anyone else.
Tony Dragon
What a good video of some cyclists breaking the law by cycling on the
wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
> > weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
>
>
> wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
>
under any circumstances but the first chance you get you choose to
blame the victims, again! Typical!
Brimstone
> On 3 Aug, 09:11, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
>>> weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
>>
>>
>> What a good video of some cyclists breaking the law by cycling on the
>> wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
>>
> I thought you lot tried to make out you didn't approve of ramming
> under any circumstances but the first chance you get you choose to
> blame the victims, again! Typical!
Who are the victims in the video Doug? Give us the time at which the
sequence commences.
Brimstone
No response Doug?
Tony Dragon
Give me the time stamp of the alleged ramming please.
As usual you tell us you don't approve of traffic laws being broken, but
when it's pointed out to you, you ignore it typical
--
Tony Dragon
Roger Merriman
there is bit at the very end, though the video doesn't show any thing ie
you can see stopped bikes and a taxi, and you can hear voices but as to
what happened your none the wiser.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Judith M Smith
wrote:
>Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
>weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
What a bunch of tossers.
Please remind as what right they have to:
ignore keep left signs
ignore traffic lights.
deliberately block traffic at green at traffic lights so that others
may break the law.
--
Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored
Doug
from a NG watching a video. How very, very convenient for them. Or
maybe you have a piss-poor PC?
spindrift
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".
I can't see any ramming there. That's 5 minutes of my life you owe me.
Tony Dragon
What a reasonably prompt answer.
Pity it did not answer the questions
1 What was the timestamp of the ramming?
2 At 0.26 why had they just stopped?
3 At 3.08 why were they riding on the wrong side of keep left signs
against oncoming traffic?
4 At 3.47 why were they riding against traffic?
5 At 4.43 why were they riding against traffic?
--
Tony Dragon
Mr Benn
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:9d99f54a-44c8-4a3e...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
> weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
After watching that I am quite shocked. I am surprised that there were no
fights.
Roger Merriman
the taxi is bloody close, and certinaly there is something up, but the
what who's doing what is frankly impossible to say.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Mike P
> Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
> weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
No ramming there. Taxi wheels didn't even make 1/3 of a turn if that's
what you are on about. Why didn't the fat bastard in front of the taxi
get out the way? There was nothing stopping him, he was just being an
arsehole.
Why are they riding against the traffic on the wrong side of the road?
The CM participants who behave in such a manner are just sad, sad
losers. I am aware not all CMers do and I am not saying they are sad
sad losers, but some clearly are.
Mike P
Tony Dragon
No answer Doug?
--
Tony Dragon
Ian
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:9d99f54a-44c8-4a3e...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Saw many examples of "cyclists" causing obstruction, ignoring traffic signs,
generally having NO regard whatsoever for other road users. Just a typical
day for cyclists, crammed into a few minutes filming.
The "poet" was crap, too.... and why edit a bit out?
Pretty poor filming, as well....
Doug
> > Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
> > weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
>
>
> wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
>
the wrong side of the road is called 'overtaking'.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Whose streets? Our streets".
Doug
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Tony Dragon
A quote or two from that article-
"cyclists brazenly blocked vehicles and crowded out pedestrians"
"smaller groups approached junctions without proper regard for the
traffic code."
"a cyclist was briefly placed in handcuffs "
--
Tony Dragon
Mike P
> On 3 Aug, 09:11, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
>> > weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
>>
>>
>> What a good video of some cyclists breaking the law by cycling on the
>> wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
>>
> Depending on road markings and space available, riding or driving on the
> wrong side of the road is called 'overtaking'.
The standard practice on a normal road is to wait until the opposite side
is empty, not just to ride down it and hope everyone gets out your way,
like these cretins are doing.
hth
Mike P
Tony Dragon
Not when it is passing the wrong side of keep left signs, but you know that.
--
Tony Dragon
Brimstone
No Doug, lots of evidence of cyclist deliberately obstructing people going
about their lawful business.
As always, you produce evidence which condemns those on CM who wish to cause
problems for others.
The result is that you've blown your own foot off, again.
Brimstone
> On 3 Aug, 09:11, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Just one example of many where a vehicle is deliberately used as a
>>> weapon to intimidate cyclists.
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-bgbOBU0hA
>>
>>
>> What a good video of some cyclists breaking the law by cycling on the
>> wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, very dangerous.
>>
> Depending on road markings and space available, riding or driving on
> the wrong side of the road is called 'overtaking'.
What's it called when one or more cyclists stop a vehicle turning into a
side road Doug?
Brimstone
Still no response Doug?
Paul Weaver
> The standard practice on a normal road is to wait until the opposite side
> is empty, not just to ride down it and hope everyone gets out your way,
> like these cretins are doing.
But that doesn't apply to
* cars overtaking cyclists
* cars overtaking lorries
* cars overtaking cars
Overtaking is fine as long as it's safe, and there's plenty of room
(factoring in relative speeds etc)
However passing to the right of a keep left sign at 30mph+, causing an
approaching vehicle to slam the brakes on? According to TFL that's
also fine when their criminal bus drivers do it, but YMMV.
Doug
>
>
> A quote or two from that article-
> "cyclists brazenly blocked vehicles and crowded out pedestrians"
> "smaller groups approached junctions without proper regard for the
> traffic code."
> "a cyclist was briefly placed in handcuffs "
>
the ramming of a cyclist at all seriously, unless its one of their own
of course, and once again they blame the vulnerable victim. As I keep
on pointing out, this inbuilt bias against cyclists and peds in favour
of drivers on our roads is rampant at all levels due to the dominence
of the car culture
Roger Merriman
> On 3 Aug, 14:40, N...@sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
yet more snips
> >
> > > I can't see any ramming there. That's 5 minutes of my life you owe me.
> >
> > the taxi is bloody close, and certinaly there is something up, but the
> > what who's doing what is frankly impossible to say.
> >
> More evidence of ramming from a hostile source.
>
>
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Critical-Mass-Cycling-London-Bi
ke-Riders-Brought-Traffic-To-A-Standstill/Article/200908115352260?lpos=U
K_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15352260_Critical_Mass_Cycling%3
A_London_Bike_Riders_Brought_Traffic_To_A_Standstill
>
there is bugger all attauly we have is the chatting we doesn't see whats
happend only the words afterwords.
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Whose streets? Our streets".
you do know that steets are no ones, shared they are.
I don't feel forced out when on foot or bike, or car etc...
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Aard
wrote:
>On 4 Aug, 07:59, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
*Or* it shows that the police, quite rightly, think that if CM riders
are deliberately provoking others then they deserve all they get.
Ace
wrote:
>there is bugger all attauly we have is the chatting we doesn't see whats
>happend only the words afterwords.
And in English?
Doug
certain circumstances, and the use of a car as a weapon? I wonder why
this doesn't apply though to other sorts of weapons, which their use
is usually regarded as completely unjustifiable despite provocation?
Brimstone
You seem to be confusing, as always, who it was doing the provoking. The
police handcuffed the provocateur, sadly they released him.
Brimstone
Yup, all the chatting in the video clip seemed to be in English.
Aard
wrote:
Hmmm, yeah, seems so. Great, innit?
>I wonder why
>this doesn't apply though to other sorts of weapons, which their use
>is usually regarded as completely unjustifiable despite provocation?
Ah, that'll be because the 'victims' of, say, gun crime rarely go
round to the owner of a gun, grab the barrel and shove it in their
mouths, and then abuse the owner and ask him to blow their fucking
heads off. Victims of burglary don't drive round to sink estates (like
the shithole you live in, Doug) and hand out their house keys to
random yobs along with a map of the house location and an inventory of
resaleable goods. Because either of those two circumstances would turn
an 'innocent victim' into an 'intentional provocatuer'.
When CM twats decide they are more important than everyone else, and
'cork' (for which read illegally impede) other road users who they
think are less worthy, I condemn the motorist for running them over.
Getting out of the car and throwing the impeder over a wall, on the
other hand, I thoroughly applaud, and that applies _regardless_ of the
mode of transport of the 'corkee' - car, bus, pedestrian, whatever. If
CM don't like being beaten the living shit out of, don't piss off
other people. Fairly simple idea, even for a braindead cretin like
you.
Tony Dragon
What that shows is what it shows.
No comments on the quotes I provided?
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
No comments about the obviously angry cyclist that the police had to
handcuff?
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Tue, 4 Aug 2009
> be construed as contempt of the supreme court.
> This does not excuse their bullying of the cyclist into not persuing
> an assault charge against the taxi driving thug though.
>
Agreed. A clear case of police blackmail. I never cease to be amazed
at what they are prepared to get away with on camera.
Another way of looking at it is, which would be the most hassle for
the police, threatening to arrest the taxi driver with his powerful
union or a lone and detested cyclist?
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Aard
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Tue, 4 Aug 2009
>12:58:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>The police probably realised the futility of taking action which would
>be construed as contempt of the supreme court.
>This does not excuse their bullying of the cyclist into not persuing
>an assault charge against the taxi driving thug though.
You're thicker than I previously took you for. And trust me on this
one, that's quite an achievement considering how little esteem I
previously held you in :)
John Clayton
"Aard" <aard...@the.zoo> wrote in message
news:vt9g755k5ajjtipb5...@4ax.com...
> Ah, that'll be because the 'victims' of, say, gun crime rarely go
> round to the owner of a gun, grab the barrel and shove it in their
> mouths, and then abuse the owner and ask him to blow their fucking
> heads off. Victims of burglary don't drive round to sink estates (like
> the shithole you live in, Doug) and hand out their house keys to
> random yobs along with a map of the house location and an inventory of
> resaleable goods. Because either of those two circumstances would turn
> an 'innocent victim' into an 'intentional provocatuer'.
> When CM twats decide they are more important than everyone else, and
> 'cork' (for which read illegally impede) other road users who they
> think are less worthy, I condemn the motorist for running them over.
> Getting out of the car and throwing the impeder over a wall, on the
> other hand, I thoroughly applaud, and that applies _regardless_ of the
> mode of transport of the 'corkee' - car, bus, pedestrian, whatever. If
> CM don't like being beaten the living shit out of, don't piss off
> other people. Fairly simple idea, even for a braindead cretin like
> you.
Listen, you fool, this is (didn't you realise) a cycling list.
Please tell me why you're confronting perfectly good, reasonable people with
your utterly horrible assumptions like "Doug's shithole" or "braindead
cretin" (both above) .
Please just go away you horrible clown.
John
Aard
<ossettm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Aard" <aard...@the.zoo> wrote in message
>news:vt9g755k5ajjtipb5...@4ax.com...
>
>> Ah, that'll be because the 'victims' of, say, gun crime rarely go
>> round to the owner of a gun, grab the barrel and shove it in their
>> mouths, and then abuse the owner and ask him to blow their fucking
>> heads off. Victims of burglary don't drive round to sink estates (like
>> the shithole you live in, Doug) and hand out their house keys to
>> random yobs along with a map of the house location and an inventory of
>> resaleable goods. Because either of those two circumstances would turn
>> an 'innocent victim' into an 'intentional provocatuer'.
>> When CM twats decide they are more important than everyone else, and
>> 'cork' (for which read illegally impede) other road users who they
>> think are less worthy, I condemn the motorist for running them over.
>> Getting out of the car and throwing the impeder over a wall, on the
>> other hand, I thoroughly applaud, and that applies _regardless_ of the
>> mode of transport of the 'corkee' - car, bus, pedestrian, whatever. If
>> CM don't like being beaten the living shit out of, don't piss off
>> other people. Fairly simple idea, even for a braindead cretin like
>> you.
>
>Listen,
No. Make me.
>you fool,
Given the cack you go on to say, I'll take that as a compliment.
> this is (didn't you realise) a cycling list.
It is? Wow. Hey, I never knew!
>Please tell me why you're confronting perfectly good, reasonable people
Sorry, did you _really_ suggest Doug is a "perfectly good normal
person"? LOL even the more rabid clowns here think Doug is off the
wall - only today a urc reg reckoned Doug represented nobody nearer
than the planet Zog!
> with
>your utterly horrible assumptions like "Doug's shithole" or "braindead
>cretin" (both above) .
>Please just go away you horrible clown.
>John
>
Ummmm, you're either a _really_ bad troll, or just downright dense.
JNugent
> "Aard" <aard...@the.zoo> wrote:
>> Ah, that'll be because the 'victims' of, say, gun crime rarely go
>> round to the owner of a gun, grab the barrel and shove it in their
>> mouths, and then abuse the owner and ask him to blow their fucking
>> heads off. Victims of burglary don't drive round to sink estates (like
>> the shithole you live in, Doug) and hand out their house keys to
>> random yobs along with a map of the house location and an inventory of
>> resaleable goods. Because either of those two circumstances would turn
>> an 'innocent victim' into an 'intentional provocatuer'.
>> When CM twats decide they are more important than everyone else, and
>> 'cork' (for which read illegally impede) other road users who they
>> think are less worthy, I condemn the motorist for running them over.
>> Getting out of the car and throwing the impeder over a wall, on the
>> other hand, I thoroughly applaud, and that applies _regardless_ of the
>> mode of transport of the 'corkee' - car, bus, pedestrian, whatever. If
>> CM don't like being beaten the living shit out of, don't piss off
>> other people. Fairly simple idea, even for a braindead cretin like
>> you.
> Listen, you fool, this is (didn't you realise) a cycling list.
Does that mean everyone reading and posting here is obliged to approve of
illegal obstruction?
> Please tell me why you're confronting perfectly good, reasonable people with
> your utterly horrible assumptions like "Doug's shithole" or "braindead
> cretin" (both above) .
> Please just go away you horrible clown.
Listen to yourself; and reflect.
Doug
> John Clayton wrote:
> > "Aard" <aardv...@the.zoo> wrote:
> >> Ah, that'll be because the 'victims' of, say, gun crime rarely go
> >> round to the owner of a gun, grab the barrel and shove it in their
> >> mouths, and then abuse the owner and ask him to blow their fucking
> >> heads off. Victims of burglary don't drive round to sink estates (like
> >> the shithole you live in, Doug) and hand out their house keys to
> >> random yobs along with a map of the house location and an inventory of
> >> resaleable goods. Because either of those two circumstances would turn
> >> an 'innocent victim' into an 'intentional provocatuer'.
> >> When CM twats decide they are more important than everyone else, and
> >> 'cork' (for which read illegally impede) other road users who they
> >> think are less worthy, I condemn the motorist for running them over.
> >> Getting out of the car and throwing the impeder over a wall, on the
> >> other hand, I thoroughly applaud, and that applies _regardless_ of the
> >> mode of transport of the 'corkee' - car, bus, pedestrian, whatever. If
> >> CM don't like being beaten the living shit out of, don't piss off
> >> other people. Fairly simple idea, even for a braindead cretin like
> >> you.
> > Listen, you fool, this is (didn't you realise) a cycling list.
>
> Does that mean everyone reading and posting here is obliged to approve of
> illegal obstruction?
>
car as a dangerous weapon.
>
> > Please tell me why you're confronting perfectly good, reasonable people with
> > your utterly horrible assumptions like "Doug's shithole" or "braindead
> > cretin" (both above) .
> > Please just go away you horrible clown.
>
> Listen to yourself; and reflect.
>
Tony Dragon
> "John Clayton" <ossettm...@blueyonder.co.uk> considered Tue, 4
> local regiment exercising their right to parade through the streets.
>
> It should be quite spectacular.
I think you will find that they give notice.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> > Aug 2009 23:22:38 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
Judith M Smith
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:17:17 +0100, Phil W Lee
><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
<snip>
>You're thicker than I previously took you for. And trust me on this
>one, that's quite an achievement considering how little esteem I
>previously held you in :)
You are not alone.
May I refer you to my post of:
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:39:48 +0100
In replying to Anchor Lee, I said:
"No wonder people have described you as thick."
--
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.
Tony Dragon
Thank you with agreeing with my point.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> considered Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:38:54 -0700
>
> So when are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Aard, Brimstone
> and co. trying to mow down the changing of the guard?
>
> That is another customarily held procession, which is not routinely
> marshalled by police.
Last time I saw 'the changing of the guard' the police were there.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/82/74882-004-655F19B3.jpg
notice the policeman on the horse at the front.
--
Tony Dragon
Aard
Don't bother, it's another strawman argument from someone who's fast
becoming urc's resident nutter. The changing of the guard is an
officially sanctioned event, and the guards don't randomly block
junctions _without_ the assistance of the police, and most importantly
of all, the ceremony is _not_ designed with the sole intent of
deliberately and systematically preventing other people going about
their lawful business.
Tony Dragon
Are you trying to tell me that the departing 'Old Guard' do not march to
Westminster Bridge, stop in the middle of the road & raise their
instruments in the air.
(cue usual comments)
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:22:28 +0100, Tony Dragon
>
>
>
> <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Phil W Lee wrote:
> >> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> considered Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:38:54 -0700
> >> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >>> Only if they are not customarily held but CM is.
>
> >> That's an irrelevance, since both are legally held processions.
>
> >> So when are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Aard, Brimstone
> >> and co. trying to mow down the changing of the guard?
>
> >> That is another customarily held procession, which is not routinely
> >> marshalled by police.
>
> >Last time I saw 'the changing of the guard' the police were there.
>
> >http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/82/74882-004-655F19B3.jpg
> >notice the policeman on the horse at the front.
>
> >again see
>
> Don't bother, it's another strawman argument from someone who's fast
> becoming urc's resident nutter. The changing of the guard is an
> officially sanctioned event, and the guards don't randomly block
> junctions _without_ the assistance of the police, and most importantly
> of all, the ceremony is _not_ designed with the sole intent of
> deliberately and systematically preventing other people going about
> their lawful business.
>
described by the Law Lords, by a congestion of cars and drivers who
try to physically ram me out of their way.
Tony Dragon
How about the people who are prevented from going about their lawful
business by the congestion caused by CM?
--
Tony Dragon
Brimstone
Is the congestion deliberately caused in order to prevent other people going
about their business and if you on your bicycle are moving forward as you
claim you are how is it possible for a car to "ram" you out of their way,
Doug?
Ian
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:bfb39e96-ed3d-43f5...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
lawful business; that there is also a means by which cyclists are able
to go about their own lawful business along with the car drivers; but
a large number of idiot cyclists ("louts"; "yobs" - general
troublemakers and rabblerousers) choose to create mayhem for their own
gratification.
Perhaps they should try similar tactics on the streets of Beijing, or
Teheran. They would soon learn to differentiate between angry car
drivers and troops carrying, and using, kalashnikovs.......
CM should be grateful we live in a (more-or-less) tolerant society - a
society which, if CM had its way, would be rather less tolerant.
(Look - I finished with "rant"!!!)
--
Ian - Sign Petition at
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TaxBicycles/
Judith M Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>That's an irrelevance, since both are legally held processions.
>
>So when are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Aard, Brimstone
>and co. trying to mow down the changing of the guard?
>
>That is another customarily held procession, which is not routinely
>marshalled by police.
Has anyone ever said that you are a fool?
Doug
> business by the congestion caused by CM?
>
for the same amount of time or longer and every day of the week, by
congestion caused by too many cars. Plus the fact that as a vulnerable
road user I am much more at risk than the motorists who sometimes also
threaten to ram me with actual physical violence with their car-
weapons.
Doug
too impatient.
Brimstone
Liar.
> Plus the fact that as a vulnerable
> road user I am much more at risk than the motorists who sometimes also
> threaten to ram me with actual physical violence with their car-
> weapons.
Why would anyone threaten to collide with you Doug?
Brimstone
But if they caught up in cogestion how are the travelling faster than you?
Tony Dragon
Do these cars intend to prevent you going about your business?
What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
to ram you?
Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
--
Tony Dragon
Aard
wrote:
>On 6 Aug, 08:34, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Yeah, but your "lawful business" is sponging off the state which keeps
you and you claim to despise. When you get a fucking job and become a
net _contributor_ instead of the drain on resources that you are, your
voice might have some worth. Til then, STFU and be grateful we don't
gas old fuckwits like you to ease the housing crisis.
> Plus the fact that as a vulnerable
>road user I am much more at risk than the motorists who sometimes also
>threaten to ram me with actual physical violence with their car-
>weapons.
Yeah, but the only ones who threaten you with their cars are the ones
who actually know who you are. Maybe that should tell you something
you poisonous old loser.
Aard
wrote:
>On 6 Aug, 09:22, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Get out of the fucking way then you dole-scrounging old turd.
Doug
>
weapon.
>
> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
> to ram you?
>
>
> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>
Doug
Aard
Tony Dragon
Could you expand on that?
>> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
>> to ram you?
>>
> I cycle among impatient motorists.
You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
riding that provokes conflict.
>> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>>
> Yes. Do you like it?
>
Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".
--
Tony Dragon
Brimstone
No response Doug?
Doug
Towards the end of the video, if you look carefully, you can see a
light spot on the side of the taxi which is from my headlamp. Not only
did the taxi driver threaten those in front but forced me to back up
to avoid being sideswiped.
>
> >> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
> >> to ram you?
>
> > I cycle among impatient motorists.
>
> You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
> riding that provokes conflict.
>
provokes conflict.
>
> >> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>
> > Yes. Do you like it?
>
> Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
>
evokes a strong emotion must be meaningful in some way?
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".
Aard
wrote:
>On 9 Aug, 09:54, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
You were forced to back up to avoid being sideswiped? So was this taxi
moving sideways across the road then?
Tony Dragon
If that was the beam from your light there was no way you could be
sideswiped as the cab in front of you.
>>>> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
>>>> to ram you?
>>> I cycle among impatient motorists.
>> You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
>> riding that provokes conflict.
>>
> No it is the undue haste in which drivers want to get from A to B that
> provokes conflict.
Nothing to do with the manner of cycling of some of the CM then?
>>>> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>>> Yes. Do you like it?
>> Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
>>
> How can it be meaningless if it is emotive? Surely something that
> evokes a strong emotion must be meaningful in some way?
>
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "More bikes, fewer cars!".
>
Not to a right minded person.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Oh and it's good that you have proved that you did the filming, the
position of the lamp beam & camera angle proves that.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
nor a nosing. There must be a name for it. Swipesiding?
Tangentalising? Come on all you semanticists out there!
>
> >>>> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
> >>>> to ram you?
> >>> I cycle among impatient motorists.
> >> You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
> >> riding that provokes conflict.
>
> > No it is the undue haste in which drivers want to get from A to B that
> > provokes conflict.
>
> Nothing to do with the manner of cycling of some of the CM then?
>
for a procession to pass before proceeding and never ever tries to ram
under any circumstances.
>
> >>>> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
> >>> Yes. Do you like it?
> >> Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
>
> > How can it be meaningless if it is emotive? Surely something that
> > evokes a strong emotion must be meaningful in some way?
>
>
>
Tony Dragon
No the taxi was in front of you, if there had been a collision then it
would be because you had not stopped, the taxi was not moving (or at
least going very slowly)
>>>>>> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
>>>>>> to ram you?
>>>>> I cycle among impatient motorists.
>>>> You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
>>>> riding that provokes conflict.
>>> No it is the undue haste in which drivers want to get from A to B that
>>> provokes conflict.
>> Nothing to do with the manner of cycling of some of the CM then?
>>
> Not if CM is to be treated as a procession. The patient driver waits
> for a procession to pass before proceeding and never ever tries to ram
> under any circumstances.
If CM wish to be treated as a procession, perhaps they should act like one.
>>>>>> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>>>>> Yes. Do you like it?
>>>> Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
>>> How can it be meaningless if it is emotive? Surely something that
>>> evokes a strong emotion must be meaningful in some way?
>>
>> Not to a right minded person.
>>
> You think emotions are meaningless?
>
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "More bikes, fewer cars!".
>
What do you think?
--
Tony Dragon
Aard
wrote:
>On 10 Aug, 09:31, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
How could a vehicle that is already in front of you, and not moving,
be termed to have _hit_ you? Any collision would be _you_ hitting _it_
unless you are claiming that it was moving sideways. Oh, hang on,
forgot. Sorry, got it now. It was a _car_ and it was _in your way_ so
it stands to reason that anything that happens is its drivers fault,
right?
>> >>>> What is it about the way you interact with people that makes them want
>> >>>> to ram you?
>> >>> I cycle among impatient motorists.
>> >> You also cycle among patient motorists, perhaps it is your style of
>> >> riding that provokes conflict.
>>
>> > No it is the undue haste in which drivers want to get from A to B that
>> > provokes conflict.
>>
>> Nothing to do with the manner of cycling of some of the CM then?
>>
>Not if CM is to be treated as a procession. The patient driver waits
>for a procession to pass before proceeding and never ever tries to ram
>under any circumstances.
>>
Why aren't _you_ being patient and allowing the taxi to pass before
proceeding? Or do your rights somehow 'trump' a car driver?
>> >>>> Is car-weapons your new buzz word?
>> >>> Yes. Do you like it?
>> >> Short, emotive, meaningless, like all buzzwords.
>>
>> > How can it be meaningless if it is emotive? Surely something that
>> > evokes a strong emotion must be meaningful in some way?
>>
>>
>> Not to a right minded person.
>>
>You think emotions are meaningless?
Yours are, yes.
BrianW
> > If that was the beam from your light there was no way you could be
> > sideswiped as the cab in front of you.
>
> Well obliquely swiped by the taxi side then. Its not quite a ramming
> nor a nosing. There must be a name for it. Swipesiding?
> Tangentalising? Come on all you semanticists out there!
There is no collision or swiping. You lie yet again.
BTW, who is the annoying tit telling bad poetry? Mate of yours?