In article , (Robin) wrote:

I agree with that but I wonder why we get all this ire against
cyclists when it is the much larger number of moron motor vehicle
drivers who kill thousands of people every year.

Perhaps it is that (i) in London at least a much higher proportion of
cyclists act unlawfully and without consideration for others -
especially pedestrians who seem to be seen as a soft target (sic) and
(ii) there is next to no enforcement of the law and penalties for
cyclists - indeed, it is almost impossible to take action against a
cyclist who fails to stop after smashing one's shopping, ripping
trousers, etc etc.

That is in my observation a very jaded and exaggerated view. I don't cycle
in london now as much as I did until March but I still see a good deal of it
and most cyclists do obey the law whatever you might think.

Look at it another way. I cannot recall when I last had to take
avoiding action because of a car going through a red light or driving
the wrong way on a one-way road. It is pretty much a weekly event
with cyclists.

Lucky you! It happens to me regularly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:37:41 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making.


Now then Porky : of course you were. It is amazing the amount of "incorrect"
legal advice you have to post - to "make a point" :-)

I suppose if the point you are trying to make, is that you are a ****wit, then
the posts are on the right lines.


--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:40:10 -0000, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:27:45 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best
not to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally.

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

Guy

the cyclist won't lose, their own household insurance will cover any losses
they suffer.



Indeed - I understand that it is usually the fridge freezer insurance that
comes in to play if you are a cyclist, for some obscure historical reason.

Well - that is what we have effectively been told.

--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 20/11/2011 15:17, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 20/11/2011 12:25, Jack Taylor wrote:
"SB" wrote in message
...

Today is Saturday and I have have been walking the streets of London
doing Xmas shopping along with thousands of others. But I live here;
most of the others are tourists. However London is very bad this year
- there are too many cyclists without lights, riding on the pavements,
and jumping the red lights. I used to be a keen cyclist having been
brought up with National Cycling Proficiency at school, and at least
reading the Highway Code. I WAS a keen cyclist - but now no more.

And now-a-days I am gob-smacked at the selfishness of modern cyclists.
This afternoon alone I have nearly been knocked over 5 times by
cyclists without lights jumping the red traffic lights - when they
have been green for me as a pedestrian. If I shout out after they just
miss knocking me over all I get told is "fcuk off!" Nice, This reduces
my sympathy for cyclists to zero.

As a responsible cyclist, who stops at traffic lights, carries lights
and fluorescent clothing and reflectors and respects other users of the
road (and pavements) I share your irritation with the morons who give us
all a bad name.

May I recommend that you carry a sturdy walking stick when out as a
pedestrian. When one of these selfish scum ignores the rules of the road
simply insert it between the spokes. It will focus the mind as the
cranium makes contact with the road surface. ;-)

Its not physically possible for a bicyclist to land on his/her head. The
human body is specifically designed to prevent this.

And on the ninth day, God said: "Let Adam not be capable of landing on his
head when falling, for fear that one of his descendants might do sowhen they
have invented the bicycle and tarmac".

And lo! It was done. And God saw that it was good.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:44:35 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

That was very much the point I was making. It is the moral equivalent
of using a baseball bat on shoplifters. It might be superficially
satisfying but it is disproportionate and illegal.

You are not allowing for the possibilty that a walking stick might be
inserted in the spokes by accident. I would hope a jury might bear in
mind that an elderly chap crossing the road with a walking stick cannot
be expected to ensure it does not go through the wheel of a cyclist
ignoring the pedestrian crossing, red lights, one-way road etc. And
given the averaae age of jurors these days I would also hope that some
would understand the difficulties.

They might also share the view that a cyclist riding at speed through
red lights at a pedestrian is morally more akin to an armed robber than
a shoplifter.


Spot on.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:41:19 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 20, 1:27*pm, "Robin" wrote:
You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

Most people would know that (as a matter of public policy) you cannot
insure against a criminal act carried out intentionally. *I do hope the
Lycra is not restricting the blood supply.

But I do agree it is an action best taken by people with little or
nothing to lose. *I have, for example, a little list of crossings I
intend to visit with my stout walking stick if I ever have the "best put
your affairs in order a.s.a.p." talk with the doctor.

I would go on a series of luxury holidays if I had such news


Leaving your wide and daughters heavily in debt? That is not very considerate
of you; but I accept par for the course.

--
Simple Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:49:35 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:


May I recommend that you carry a sturdy walking stick when out as a
pedestrian. When one of these selfish scum ignores the rules of the road
simply insert it between the spokes. It will focus the mind as the cranium
makes contact with the road surface. ;-)

You should also ensure that your insurance covers you for assault
causing actual bodily harm. If it doesn't then it's probably best not
to try this as it could be very expensive indeed.

And of course the cyclist who assaults you while riding through a
pedestrian crossing in the green man phase will also have insurance.

That comment makes no sense at all. Why would a cyclist assault me
while he was riding through a pelican crossing, albeit illegally? And
in any case, as discussed ad nauseam, actually it's quite likely he
will have insurance even if he does not know it.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

In message , at 16:58:00 on
Sun, 20 Nov 2011, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
remarked:
Why would a cyclist assault me while he was riding through a pelican
crossing, albeit illegally?

If you are asking "why": probably because he doesn't care. If you are
asking "how": by colliding with you.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:02:27 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:58:00 on
Sun, 20 Nov 2011, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
remarked:
Why would a cyclist assault me while he was riding through a pelican
crossing, albeit illegally?

If you are asking "why": probably because he doesn't care. If you are
asking "how": by colliding with you.

If this unlikely event ever happens I will bear it in mind.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:08:17 +0000, Judith wrote:




Now then Porky :

The reproductive system is complex; leeches are hermaphroditic and cross-
fertilizing.



--


snip



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.