Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, thaksin wrote:
Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any
cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green
man.
Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You
don't want to shoulder charge me mate!
And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian
crossing being used by pedestrians without even slowing?
No, prat.
sigh
A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma.

You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't
you?
Actually yes
Thought so.

but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****!
Once again, that's dash dash space.

Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a
little old lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so
deliberately - because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard
indeed.
See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole!
See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you?

Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous
comment to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to
back-track when you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look?

No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the
law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to
good for him.

You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings
and I'm pointing out you're wrong.

Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve
your own person?

Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's
perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment
about 'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the
widely-held and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be
permitted to vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put
them at risk. So: cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in
attacking car (apparently). ped feels at risk from cyclist =
justified in attacking cyclist. See? All makes sense now

Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a
double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's
a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number
plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in
seconds.

Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore
able to empathise with one road user than the other?

No, it's because the cyclist doesn't have a protective cage to shield
him/her from decent people venting their anger.