On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:00:21 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

Nick Cooper 625 blathered, in response to Guy:
On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.

I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often.

Guy is a Christian, but otherwise seems to be pretty firmly rooted in
reality.

There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse?

Do you have difficulty reading? Guy stated 2 *reasons* why cyclists go
through red lights, not *excuses*. In fact, 2 paragraphs later Guy
wrote: "Which is not an excuse..."

Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.

Oh look, you didn't even snip it! Actually, you /do/ seem to have
difficulty trimming, as well.

Half the problem with this thread is cyclist-apologists
overly-trimming and then claiming that things were said which weren't.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk