Do you speak to RLJ's?
spindrift
he zoomed past a red light. Caught him eventually, despite his jumping
every frigging light from the Bof E to SE1.
"You nearly hit that lady!"
I said.
"Oh dear" he said, and pedalled off.
Not sure I achieved anything.
mr p
not sure about RLJ's but I wanted to throw some abuse at the dosy cow
in a 4X4 who slammed on here brakes *THREE* times in front of me the
other day. She drove past me at 60mph so presumably she knew I was
there... scary. I came passed her when she was pulling away the 3rd
time and she actually saw me then ! not a hint of an acknowledgment or
apology though. Amazing..
Simon
Bryan
A while I ago I pointed out to one approaching Westmister Bridge that
it was illeagal to do that, and the respone was 'I only chose to obey
the laws that I like'
He then went into the DIT building on Victoria Street. Oh well
Bryan
--
Bryan
Peter Clinch
> Chased a numpty this morning who'd made a commuter pull back sharply as
> he zoomed past a red light. Caught him eventually, despite his jumping
> every frigging light from the Bof E to SE1.
If I overhaul them I generally point out that their action reflects
badly on *me* and any other cyclists and that /really/ pisses me off.
Doubt it changes much behaviour, but there's a very small chance that
one of the duty neurons might fire.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
spindrift
It was pretty aggressive, the light had been red for three of four
seconds and the lady was just stepping off the pavement- he must have
seen her.
When I spoke with him he had a colonial accent, Kiwi or something, but
he wasn't abashed at all. Very silly lad.
Pyromancer
<newt...@hotmail.com> gently breathed:
I yelled at one who nearly hit me (I was cycling through a junction on
green) "Red lights mean stop you know", and jut got a stream of abuse
back. Would do it again though.
But then I also yell at people who drive while holding mobiles clamped
to their ears if their windows are open. I always hope the person at
the other end is their boss/spouse and they hear me.
Serial RLJs should have their vehicles confiscated. Phone drivers
should lose their cars and also loose their phones and be made to pay a
GBP1000 fee to be allowed to have another mobile. That'd soon put a
stop to it.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
Adrian Boliston
news:1159866758.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think trying be be a self styled policeman achieves very little, and could
easily backfire if you pick on the wrong person to complain to.
Mark Thompson
Had to this morning - I was riding with one. Fortunately the other chap
riding with us didn't either, so the Jumper ended up waiting the other side
of the lights.
Phil Cook
>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as spindrift
><newt...@hotmail.com> gently breathed:
>
>>Chased a numpty this morning who'd made a commuter pull back sharply as
>>he zoomed past a red light. Caught him eventually, despite his jumping
>>every frigging light from the Bof E to SE1.
>
>>"You nearly hit that lady!"
>>I said.
>>"Oh dear" he said, and pedalled off.
>>Not sure I achieved anything.
>
>I yelled at one who nearly hit me (I was cycling through a junction on
>green) "Red lights mean stop you know", and jut got a stream of abuse
>back. Would do it again though.
If I'm stopped at a light and somebody sails past I yell as loud as I
can "THAT WAS RED" I don't care if they swear back, 99 percent of the
time they do, but as they sail on their merry way it brings to
attention the fact that I have stopped at the red and shows people
we're not all like that.
I once admonished more quietly face to face a couple of riders joining
our club jun who ran through a red light before they pulled up at the
cafe where we meet. they didn't seem to realise what they were doing
reflected badly on us as a club and cyclists in general.
>But then I also yell at people who drive while holding mobiles clamped
>to their ears if their windows are open. I always hope the person at
>the other end is their boss/spouse and they hear me.
I usually shout some very choice anglo saxon ending with phone down.
It's the only way to get some people's attention.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Alex
> I yelled at one who nearly hit me (I was cycling through a junction on
> green) "Red lights mean stop you know", and jut got a stream of abuse
> back. Would do it again though.
I usually say something and shout more abuse and chase them (after the
lights go green) if they say anything negative back. Hopefully their
brain will associate RLJ'ing with negative consequences (abuse and
being chased, especially by another cyclist).
> But then I also yell at people who drive while holding mobiles clamped
> to their ears if their windows are open. I always hope the person at
> the other end is their boss/spouse and they hear me.
"Put your phone down, you're going to kill someone" is my usual line.
It reminds me of one of my favourite games on my 65 mile commute into
work on the motorbike. I'd frequently pull up next to someone at
traffic lights and it was always fun if they were on the phone.
First off was a tap on the window and some "put your phone down" hand
gestures with added finger waving.
If there was no response (usually it was a one or two fingered
response) I'd up the revs on the bike.
3000rpm is annoying if their window is open. They would close it and
carry on talking.
6000rpm is annoying if their window is closed. They would start
shouting.
At 9000rpm they can't even shout over the noise, this usually ends the
call.
I had plenty spare, the red line was at 13500rpm.
I always wore earplugs.
-Alex
Tony Raven
>
> If there was no response (usually it was a one or two fingered
> response) I'd up the revs on the bike.
>
> 3000rpm is annoying if their window is open. They would close it and
> carry on talking.
>
> 6000rpm is annoying if their window is closed. They would start
> shouting.
>
> At 9000rpm they can't even shout over the noise, this usually ends the
> call.
>
> I had plenty spare, the red line was at 13500rpm.
>
Wow, the best I can do on a bicycle is about 130rpm these days ;-)
--
Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Rob Morley
Pyromancer <pyrom...@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as spindrift
> <newt...@hotmail.com> gently breathed:
>
> >Chased a numpty this morning who'd made a commuter pull back sharply as
> >he zoomed past a red light. Caught him eventually, despite his jumping
> >every frigging light from the Bof E to SE1.
>
> >"You nearly hit that lady!"
> >I said.
> >"Oh dear" he said, and pedalled off.
> >Not sure I achieved anything.
>
> I yelled at one who nearly hit me (I was cycling through a junction on
> green) "Red lights mean stop you know", and jut got a stream of abuse
> back. Would do it again though.
>
> But then I also yell at people who drive while holding mobiles clamped
> to their ears if their windows are open. I always hope the person at
> the other end is their boss/spouse and they hear me.
>
> Serial RLJs should have their vehicles confiscated. Phone drivers
> should lose their cars and also loose their phones and be made to pay a
> GBP1000 fee to be allowed to have another mobile. That'd soon put a
> stop to it.
>
around the ankle, stops them from cycling or driving and makes them look
like a dork when they walk.
Rob Morley
presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
a thought rattling around inside their heads.
Sirius631
Rob Morley wrote:
> I've a better idea - clamp them for a few days: something that fits
> around the ankle, stops them from cycling or driving and makes them look
> like a dork when they walk.
A pair of shackles would work, with an added steel ball for good
measure.
David Lloyd
W.War...@ed.ac.uk
mr p wrote:
>
> not sure about RLJ's but I wanted to throw some abuse at the dosy cow
> in a 4X4 who slammed on here brakes *THREE* times in front of me the
> other day. She drove past me at 60mph so presumably she knew I was
> there... scary. ...
I wouldn't count on it- having passed you (a slow-moving obstacle) you
were probably forgotton instantly- You would fall into the same
category as a bollard, not be recognised as another vehicle that might
reappear further down the road.
> ... I came passed her when she was pulling away the 3rd
> time and she actually saw me then ! not a hint of an acknowledgment or
> apology though. Amazing..
Again- even assuming she recognised you as the same obstacle as
before- you probably didn't register in her conscience until you
overtook- It's quite likely that you didn't exist between her initial
overtake and your subsequent one.
Cheers,
W.
Sirius631
Rob Morley wrote:
> I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
> presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
> while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
> doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
> anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
> a thought rattling around inside their heads.
They would probably think, 'I've gone through all those red lights and
yet I get caught by this guy. I must find some more red lights to ride
through.'
David Lloyd
Sirius631
Rob Morley wrote:
> I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
> presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
> while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
> doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
> anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
> a thought rattling around inside their heads.
They would probably think, 'I've gone through all those red lights and
Marz
Rob Morley wrote:
> I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
> presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
> while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
> doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
> anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
> a thought rattling around inside their heads.
Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
violence. Is this how you drive too?
Of course there's a benefit to skipping red lights, it is possible to
make any journey 'slightly' quicker with less effort (no stopping and
starting). As you mentioned you had to increase your effort to 'burn
them off'.
Laters,
Marz
Danny Colyer
>>I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
>>presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
>>while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
>>doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
>>anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
>>a thought rattling around inside their heads.
and Marz responded:
> Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
> violence. Is this how you drive too?
I'm sorry Marz, I've read and re-read what you quoted, but I can't see
any mention of violence. Could you clarify, please?
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Bristol to Bath by unicycle: <http://www.bristoltobathonaunicycle.co.uk>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Ian Smith
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
> > presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
> > while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
> > doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
> > anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
> > a thought rattling around inside their heads.
>
> Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
> violence. Is this how you drive too?
As fast as possible while complying with all law? Yes, pretty much.
What is wrong with that?
What violence?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Marz
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>I sometimes play chicken with them or cut them up if the opportunity
> >>presents itself, but often it's just as satisfying to burn them off
> >>while riding 'textbook' to demonstrate that their silly behaviour
> >>doesn't really benefit them. As you, I'm not sure if it achieves
> >>anything (other than a smidge of personal satisfaction) but it /may/ set
> >>a thought rattling around inside their heads.
>
> and Marz responded:
> > Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
> > violence. Is this how you drive too?
>
> I'm sorry Marz, I've read and re-read what you quoted, but I can't see
> any mention of violence. Could you clarify, please?
>
checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
contact.
If you want to play the higher ground, you should stay up there.
Laters,
Marz
Ian Smith
> Danny Colyer wrote:
> >
> > and Marz responded:
> > > Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
> > > violence. Is this how you drive too?
> >
> > I'm sorry Marz, I've read and re-read what you quoted, but I can't see
> > any mention of violence. Could you clarify, please?
> >
> Sorry, didn't realise this was a special needs group, but last time I
> checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
> chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
> threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
> contact.
You said 'an act of violence'. There is no act of violence in the
passage. Since you choose instead to talk about something else, I
take it you agree your comment was pretty much baseless?
Incidently, when your argument is weak, prefacing it with ad-hominem
insults merely demonstrates that you know full well that it is weak,
and have nothing better to support yourself than casting abuse. I
find that it doesn't normally do to highlight the weakness of your
own argument - better to examine the argument you seek to damage.
> If you want to play the higher ground, you should stay up there.
Indeed.
Danny Colyer
> Sorry, didn't realise this was a special needs group, but last time I
> checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
> chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
> threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
> contact.
violence: noun, behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt,
damage or kill someone or something.
Playing chicken or cutting someone up might perhaps be termed an act of
aggression, but by no stretch of the imagination can either be termed an
act of violence.
mt9...@hotmail.com
Marz may have over egged the pudding but I think it is hard to justify
"playing chicken with" or "cutting up" another road user as an act of
petty revenge for a traffic offence.
I sometimes swear at other road users but I wouldn't say I feel proud
of that behaviour.
best wishes
james
Marz
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Marz wrote:
> > Sorry, didn't realise this was a special needs group, but last time I
> > checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
> > chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
> > threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
> > contact.
>
> violence: noun, behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt,
> damage or kill someone or something.
>
> Playing chicken or cutting someone up might perhaps be termed an act of
> aggression, but by no stretch of the imagination can either be termed an
> act of violence.
>
> --
Depends on your definition of 'act of violence' I get mine from...
For example, violence in public places can include intimidation,
threats, and physical or sexual assaults, between friends or strangers.
... which I think I picked up from googling for a definition of violent
acts.
I feel that threatening another cyclist with a game of chicken is
intimidation and a threat of physical assault, for me a violent act.
Laters,
Marz
Marz
Under the law a threat of intentional physical assault is a violent act
and I think attempting to ram someone with your bike, i.e. playing
chicken, fits into this definition.
Now you gone and made me look what ad-hominem means and it seems my
attack falls under the subtype of argumentum ad personam, interesting
and apologies for the outburst. I guess we all have our 'RLJ' to which
we react to, one of mine is people making light of violent behavior.
Laters,
Marz
Ian Smith
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On 4 Oct 2006 13:43:59 -0700, Marz <marzje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Danny Colyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and Marz responded:
> > > > > Nice, so someone commits a wee crime and you respond with an act of
> > > > > violence. Is this how you drive too?
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry Marz, I've read and re-read what you quoted, but I can't see
> > > > any mention of violence. Could you clarify, please?
> > > >
> > > Sorry, didn't realise this was a special needs group, but last time I
> > > checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
> > > chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
> > > threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
> > > contact.
> >
> > You said 'an act of violence'. There is no act of violence in the
> > passage. Since you choose instead to talk about something else, I
> > take it you agree your comment was pretty much baseless?
>
> and I think attempting to ram someone with your bike, i.e. playing
> chicken, fits into this definition.
Legally, I believe that intimidating threats can be assault, which is
classed with violent crime, but that's not what you talked about - you
talked about "an act of violence". Threats of violence are not acts
of violence. Your statement "attempting to sacare someone ... is
assault" is not generally true - it is threatening to do physical
violence to them which is assault.
Further, it's dubious even whether cutting someone up etc. is a threat
of assault.
Pyromancer
Boliston <adr...@boliston.co.uk> gently breathed:
Acting as a concerned citizen is not being a "self styled policeman",
it's something we should all do for the greater good of society. The
police should only be needed for serious lawbreaking and genuine
emergencies, it's up to the rest of us to speak up for the law in
general if we want to live in a civilised society.
Pyromancer
<marzje...@gmail.com> gently breathed:
>Of course there's a benefit to skipping red lights, it is possible to
>make any journey 'slightly' quicker with less effort (no stopping and
>starting). As you mentioned you had to increase your effort to 'burn
>them off'.
There is frequently a benefit to the law-breaker in breaking the law. It
would be far cheaper for me to say, come to your house and steal your TV
or computer than to buy a new one of my own. When I'm driving my van I
could probably get there quicker by ignoring red lights, never giving
way to anyone, or indeed expecting all cyclists to either get out of my
way or get knocked over. Somehow I don't think you'd be too happy if I,
or van drivers in general, did these things.
Red lights mean stop. It's what the law requires. Civilised people
obey the law. RLJs bring disrepute on cycling in general. Don't do it.
Pyromancer
<al...@greenbank.org> gently breathed:
>"Put your phone down, you're going to kill someone" is my usual line.
>
>It reminds me of one of my favourite games on my 65 mile commute into
>work on the motorbike. I'd frequently pull up next to someone at
>traffic lights and it was always fun if they were on the phone.
>
>First off was a tap on the window and some "put your phone down" hand
>gestures with added finger waving.
>
>If there was no response (usually it was a one or two fingered
>response) I'd up the revs on the bike.
>
>3000rpm is annoying if their window is open. They would close it and
>carry on talking.
>
>6000rpm is annoying if their window is closed. They would start
>shouting.
>
>At 9000rpm they can't even shout over the noise, this usually ends the
>call.
>
>I had plenty spare, the red line was at 13500rpm.
>
>I always wore earplugs.
LOL! Nice, would love to have seen that!
Simon Brooke
('marzje...@gmail.com') wrote:
>
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>> Marz wrote:
>> > Sorry, didn't realise this was a special needs group, but last time I
>> > checked attempting to scare someone through deliberate action (playing
>> > chicken/cutting them up) is assault or an act of violence. If you
>> > threaten someone it is assault, you don't have to make physical
>> > contact.
>>
>> violence: noun, behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt,
>> damage or kill someone or something.
>>
>> Playing chicken or cutting someone up might perhaps be termed an act of
>> aggression, but by no stretch of the imagination can either be termed an
>> act of violence.
>
> Depends on your definition of 'act of violence' I get mine from...
>
> For example, violence in public places can include intimidation,
> threats, and physical or sexual assaults, between friends or strangers.
Yup. I also think that we should extend the definition of 'green' to
include the colour of the top traffic on the pole; and white is, let's
face it, only a slightly paler shade of black. If other people think these
words have more restrictive meanings, so as to actually allow one to
distinguish between concepts, they must clearly be idiots, whatever idiot
means.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit
Simon Brooke
Agreed.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison
Patrick Herring
|
| spindrift wrote:
| > Chased a numpty this morning who'd made a commuter pull back sharply as
| > he zoomed past a red light. Caught him eventually, despite his jumping
| > every frigging light from the Bof E to SE1.
|
| badly on *me* and any other cyclists and that /really/ pisses me off.
| Doubt it changes much behaviour, but there's a very small chance that
| one of the duty neurons might fire.
Perhaps you're targetting functions too high in the system. I suspect,
though haven't proved, that apparent self-righteousness and verbal abuse
simply generate an equal and opposite reaction, whereas a subliminal
suggestion of lack-of-status gets under the radar. So a barely audible
"prat", which also is easy to lip-read, might be more effective.
--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
Cycle helmets - for & against: http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html
Rob Morley
mt9...@hotmail.com <mt9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Marz may have over egged the pudding but I think it is hard to justify
> "playing chicken with" or "cutting up" another road user as an act of
> petty revenge for a traffic offence.
It's only ignoring them in the same way that they ignore traffic
signals.
>
> I sometimes swear at other road users but I wouldn't say I feel proud
> of that behaviour.
>
I more often shout something like "wake up" or "look where you're
going", although the sort of situation that requires a loud 'OI' might
prompt a follow-up of verbal abuse.
Alistair Gunn
> Acting as a concerned citizen is not being a "self styled policeman",
> it's something we should all do for the greater good of society. The
> police should only be needed for serious lawbreaking and genuine
> emergencies, it's up to the rest of us to speak up for the law in
> general if we want to live in a civilised society.
All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Adrian Boliston
news:Y1PZfqEo...@nemesis.as15758.net...
> Acting as a concerned citizen is not being a "self styled policeman",
> it's something we should all do for the greater good of society. The
> police should only be needed for serious lawbreaking and genuine
> emergencies, it's up to the rest of us to speak up for the law in
> general if we want to live in a civilised society.
If I saw a crime where there was a "victim" then I would most likely give
assistance (eg someone mugging a little old lady), but let's face it the
most likely "victim" of a cyclist RLJ is the perpetrator him/herself!
Al C-F
>
>
> If I saw a crime where there was a "victim" then I would most likely give
> assistance (eg someone mugging a little old lady), but let's face it the
> most likely "victim" of a cyclist RLJ is the perpetrator him/herself!
>
>
What sort of person would need assistance to mug a little old lady?
Tony Raven
A little old man? Or for some of them a hulking young man!
--
Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
D.M. Procida
> >> Playing chicken or cutting someone up might perhaps be termed an act of
> >> aggression, but by no stretch of the imagination can either be termed an
> >> act of violence.
> >
> > Depends on your definition of 'act of violence' I get mine from...
> >
> > For example, violence in public places can include intimidation,
> > threats, and physical or sexual assaults, between friends or strangers.
>
> Yup. I also think that we should extend the definition of 'green' to
> include the colour of the top traffic on the pole; and white is, let's
> face it, only a slightly paler shade of black. If other people think these
> words have more restrictive meanings, so as to actually allow one to
> distinguish between concepts, they must clearly be idiots, whatever idiot
> means.
I think a threat of physical aggression in the context of a cyclist on
the road, even playing chicken or cutting someone up, whether you really
want to insist it's an act of violence or not, is bad and dangerous
behaviour.
Daniele
David Damerell
>I think a threat of physical aggression in the context of a cyclist on
>the road, even playing chicken or cutting someone up, whether you really
>want to insist it's an act of violence or not, is bad and dangerous
>behaviour.
No-one is disputing that - rendering the original hyperbole pointless as
well as wrong.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Brieday, September.
Rob Morley
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Quoting D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>:
> >I think a threat of physical aggression in the context of a cyclist on
> >the road, even playing chicken or cutting someone up, whether you really
> >want to insist it's an act of violence or not, is bad and dangerous
> >behaviour.
>
> No-one is disputing that
Except me :-) I don't see that raising risk awareness with a practical
demonstration is necessarily wrong - probably better for an errant
cyclist to encounter me on a bike than an oblivious or homicidal
motorist.
Simon Brooke
<1hmss5p.pvm5yjjxsy0fN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>, D.M.
Ah! That's a completely different argument, and one I can happily agree
with.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
Stevie D
> What sort of person would need assistance to mug a little old lady?
Cue series of mother-in-law jokes....
--
\\\\\ Stevie D
\\\\\\\__. Bringing OLFs to the common hedgehog since 2001
___\\\\\\\'/_______________________________________________________
Terry
(Adrian Boliston) wrote:
> let's face it the most likely "victim" of a cyclist RLJ is the
> perpetrator him/herself!
Watching a RLJ in action the other night, it occurred to me that a
driver seeing the RLJ at the last minute might take sudden evasive
action which could threaten innocent bystanders, such as myself.
The RLJ was of course wearing a helmet and high-visibility jacket.